UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 presented by 
 Marion D. Pratt Estate 
 
 973.7LG3 
 DW24a 
 
 U--~~ r, ROOM
 
 
 
 V -7
 
 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 
 
 TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRATORS BY A 
 MILITARY COMMISSION 
 
 AND A REVIEW OF THE TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT 
 
 BY T. M. HARRIS 
 
 LATE BRIGADIER-GENERAL U. S. V. AND MAJOR-GENERAL BY BREVET 
 A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION 
 
 i 
 
 BOSTON, MASS. 
 AMERICAN CITIZEN COMPANY 
 
 7 BROMFIELD STREET
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1892, 
 
 BY T. M. HARRIS, 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 
 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 
 
 Typography by FISH & SANCTON, 198 Washington St., Boston.
 
 EXPLANATION. 
 
 IT is perhaps necessary that the author should explain the 
 sense in which the term, " Great Conspiracy," in the title of his 
 book, is used. It is not at all in the same sense in which it 
 is used by General Logan in his book. In that it is used as 
 the equivalent of the Great Rebellion, only that it broadly 
 covers all that led to and culminated in the war against the 
 government, designated as " The Rebellion." It is only here 
 used to designate the conspiracy that resorted to the policy of 
 assassination as a means to give aid to the rebellion ; and the 
 reader who follows the author through will then be able to per- 
 ceive why he designates this a " Great Conspiracy."
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 IT is now more than twenty-seven years since the assassina- 
 tion of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, an 
 event of the greatest importance at the time, not only to the 
 people of the United States, but to the civilized world. The 
 trial of the conspirators by a military commission created the 
 greatest possible interest; and the proceedings and testimony 
 were published from day to day by all of the great newspapers 
 of the country, and read with avidity. The judgment of those 
 who carefully studied the testimony at the time was formed 
 upon a competent knowledge of the facts. 
 
 And yet, even then, the fate of the prisoners on trial before 
 the Commission, to be found innocent or guilty according to the 
 evidence, constituted the great point of interest, and thus tended 
 to divert attention from the evidence against the other parties 
 charged not only with being co-conspirators, but as being the 
 instigators of the plot. 
 
 Since that time a new generation has come on to the stage of 
 action, and as the official report of the trial by Ben Pittman, 
 published at the time, is in the hands of but comparatively few 
 people, a concise history of this great event, in popular form, 
 but founded on the evidence, seemed to the writer to be due 
 and called for at the present time. 
 
 The necessity for this has been emphasized by a recent re- 
 vival of efforts that have been made from time to time, ever 
 
 5
 
 6 PREFACE, 
 
 since the execution of the assassins that were condemned to 
 death, to prejudice public sentiment against the government by 
 the assumption of the innocence of one of the parties executed 
 Mrs. Surratt. 
 
 Only a few months since (May 30, 1891), La Salle Insti- 
 tute in New York City was crowded by an audience that came 
 together expecting to hear Cardinal Gibbons and Father Walter 
 review the case of Mrs. Surratt. Neither the cardinal nor the 
 father appeared, but a Mr. Sloane arose and read to the audi- 
 ence a letter from Father Walter on the subject. This letter 
 contained nothing new to those who were familiar with the case 
 at the time of its occurrence. It was substantially the same 
 that was published over his signature shortly after her execu- 
 tion. After stating that he was her confessor, and that his 
 priestly vows did not permit him to reveal the secrets of the 
 confessional, he very calmly and positively states his belief in 
 her entire innocence, basing that belief on what he professes to 
 know. He then relates the efforts he made to get a reprieve 
 and a postponement of her execution for a few days, and 
 expresses the belief that could he have succeeded in this for 
 only ten days he could have saved her life. 
 
 He then complains of the manner in which he was treated 
 by the President, Andrew Johnson, and Judge Holt, who referred 
 him back and forth, each to the other, and that between them 
 he could get nothing accomplished. 
 
 A story has also been gotten up of a Union soldier who was 
 a member of the conspiracy and knew all of its members and 
 secrets, who affirms the innocence of Mrs. Surratt. The most 
 rational and, at the same time, charitable thing to be said 
 about this story is, that this Union soldier was manufactured 
 for the occasion. 
 
 That portion of the press of to-day that inherits the old cop-
 
 PREFACE. 7 
 
 per-head animus, greedily publishes all such things as these, and 
 indulges in the wildest latitude of editorial comment and false 
 statements. They have buried all of the members of the Com- 
 mission but one many times ; have followed all of the princi- 
 pal actors in the scene to violent and miserable deaths ; and have 
 made it manifest that had the Almighty Ruler of the Universe 
 viewed the matter in their light, and been as swift in his retri- 
 butions as they would have had him to be, not one who had 
 any connection with the arrest, trial, and execution of the assas- 
 sins of the great and good President would have been left alive. 
 
 They have manifested an especial venom of feeling against the 
 then Secretary of War, Hon. E. M. Stanton, iterating and reit- 
 erating the absurd and false statement that he died from the 
 violence of his own hand, being crazed wirh remorse. Why they 
 should thus select Mr. Stanton as the especial object of their 
 hatred cannot be seen from any connection he had with this case. 
 His part, though important and involving great responsibility, 
 was, in fact, a very subordinate one. He selected the officers to 
 be embraced in the order of detail for the Commission, under 
 the order of the President, that was all. Judge Holt conducted 
 the trial and recorded the proceedings under the President's 
 order, and when he handed that record over to the President 
 his connection with the case ended. President Johnson then held 
 the temporal destiny of this woman, as well as that of all the 
 others convicted, in his own hand. He and he alone was respon- 
 sible. 
 
 From all this it appears that the time has come when a clear, 
 concise history of this conspiracy and trial should be given to 
 the world. To this task the writer has addressed himself, and 
 he offers this volume as the result of his labors. The facts 
 herein narrated in regard to the assassination, as well as to the 
 parts enacted by each of the individual members of the conspir-
 
 8 PREFACE. 
 
 acy, are drawn from the testimony before the Commission. They 
 have been thrown into the form of a connected narrative, and 
 there has been nothing stated as a fact but what is fully sustained 
 by the evidence which formed the basis of the decisions of the 
 Commission. Nothing has been admitted into this narrative but 
 what rests on the specific testimony of unimpeachable witnesses. 
 The author only deems it necessary that the opinion, or belief, 
 of Father Walter, and all others of his persuasion, shall be con- 
 fronted by the testimony in the case, in order that an intelligent 
 judgment shall be reached. At the time of this trial there were 
 just two classes of people in this country the friends and the 
 enemies of the government. The former were united and deter- 
 mined in their purpose and effort to preserve and perpetuate 
 the government established by our fathers under the constitution 
 that included in its purpose and provisions the union of the states 
 and made us a nation. The latter were madly bent on its over- 
 throw, and so judged favorably or unfavorably of the occurrences 
 of the times, as they tended to favor or hinder the accomplish- 
 ment of their purposes. The feelings of both parties had been 
 wrought up to the highest pitch of intensity because the mat- 
 ters at issue had been submitted to the arbitrament of the sword. 
 The result of this appeal was clearly foreshadowed at the time 
 of the assassination of the President, and before the conclusion 
 of the trial of his murderers the cause of the Confederacy had 
 collapsed. The rebellion was virtually overcome. The deep 
 political scheme to give it a new lease of life and bring to its 
 aid new elements of success by the assassinations that had been 
 planned, had been too long delayed, and its execution had 
 become utterly impracticable. The soldiers of the rebellion had 
 fought their fight a brave and plucky and protracted fight. 
 They realized the hopelessness of their cause and, though greatly 
 disappointed and mortified at their failure, they had the con-
 
 PREFACE. 9 
 
 sciousness that they had done all that brave men could do to 
 win success, and so were ready to accept the result, return to 
 their homes, and resume citizenship under the government they 
 were unable to overthrow. Not so with the secret active ene- 
 mies of the government. They were not willing to accept defeat, 
 but were, nevertheless (happily for the country), in a condition 
 that they could only show their enmity by maligning and villify- 
 ing the authorities they were unable to overthrow; and of this 
 privilege they fully availed themselves. Thus it has come to pass 
 that the magnitude, scope, and purpose of the assassination con- 
 piracy are unknown to the present generation. All that a large 
 majority of those who have come upon the stage of action since 
 that time know of this, in many respects, one of the most import- 
 ant trials that has ever occurred in our history, is what they have 
 learned through the efforts of these vituperators ; and they have 
 never seen it referred to other than as the trial of Mrs. Surratt. 
 The Commission was not called upon to render a decision as to 
 the innocence or guilt of the persons charged by the govern- 
 ment with being co-conspirators with John H. Surratt and John 
 Wilkes Booth, who were not in the custody of the government 
 and so not before the Commission ; but the government, having 
 assumed the responsibility of charging Jefferson Davis, George 
 N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, 
 Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and others, with 
 thus conspiring to kill and murder Abraham Lincoln, Andrew 
 Johnson, Wm. H. Seward, and Ulysses S. Grant, was under the 
 necessity of vindicating its honor and dignity before the world 
 by presenting the evidence in its possession on which its charge 
 was founded. It will be my purpose to present this evidence, 
 and to show the full significance and purpose of the plot, and 
 with whom it originated. Many of the prominent actors in this 
 tragedy have been summoned before a higher tribunal to
 
 10 PREFACE. 
 
 answer for the deeds done in the body. There we are con- 
 tent to leave them, assured that " all things are naked and 
 open to the eyes of Him with whom they have to do," and 
 that there will be no mistakes made in the decisions there ren- 
 dered. And toward those who yet remain, it is with no feel- 
 ings of personal enmity that the author shall write. He only 
 knows them as they are revealed in the testimony, and by this 
 he shall endeavor to deal fairly and candidly. They made 
 themselves conspicuous in their connection with public affairs 
 of the greatest importance, and so their acts belong to the 
 public. If they have made a bad record, it is due to the truth 
 of history that their acts shall be fully unfolded. History is a 
 truthful narration of events that have occurred ; and its con- 
 clusions must be based on a consideration of all of the facts, 
 taken in their proper order and relation to the events. The 
 aim of the writer has been to give a candid and reliable his- 
 tory of the Great Conspiracy as deduced from the evidence 
 before the Commission and to be found in the official report 
 of the proceedings published by Ben Pittman immediately after 
 the trial. 
 
 The asperities of the great conflict have been largely oblit- 
 erated by the many happy years of peace that have inter- 
 vened since that unhappy period. We have but one country 
 and one flag, which almost all have learned to love as of old. 
 Let us draw wisdom and virtue from the history of the past, 
 learning as well from our errors and mistakes as from our 
 virtues, that we may, by a course of well-doing, gain the favor 
 of Him who holds the destiny of nations in His hands, and 
 who pulls down one and sets another up. 
 
 The stability of a popular government must rest on the virtue 
 and intelligence of its people. Our institutions were established 
 on this basis alone, and on this alone can they stand. The
 
 PREFACE. I i 
 
 divorcement of Church and State by the framers of our con- 
 stitution was one of the wise conclusions which they drew from 
 the past; but it was no part of their purpose to divorce relig- 
 ion from the State. On the contrary, their politics was a part 
 of their religion and was deduced from the teachings of God's 
 word. Let us beware of the effort of the present time to 
 divorce politics from religion because we rightly divorce the 
 Church from the State. 
 
 There is no morality that can make a man a valuable and 
 a reliable citizen of a free state except the morality of the 
 Christian religion as taught in God's word. It is the duty, 
 therefore, of every parent and every teacher to instill into the 
 minds of our youth this Christian morality as a basis for the 
 highest patriotism and noblest citizenship. Let the American 
 flag float over every school-house, and the morality of the 
 Bible be taught with the authority inherent in God's word. 
 Then will the days of assassinations, whether political or relig- 
 ious, come to an end. Owing to a variety of causes, the 
 facts connected with this most important event in our nation's 
 history have been slurred over and obscured. Scarcely one in 
 a thousand of our people to-day have any knowledge of their 
 existence. 
 
 The object of the writer will be to revive them and bring 
 them out clearly to the knowledge of all. 
 
 T. M. HARRIS. 
 
 RITCHIE C. H., W. Va.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 EXPLANATION 3 
 
 PREFACE 5 
 
 CONTENTS ......... 13 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 INTRODUCTORY 17 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 PREPARATIONS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE PLOT 24 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF 
 
 SECRETARY SEWARD 34 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 THE NEWS COMMUNICATED TO THE WORLD, AND ITS EFFECT . . 47 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 UNRAVELLING THE PLOT PURSUIT AND CAPTURE OF BOOTH AND HEROLD 
 
 DEATH OF BOOTH 51 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY ARREST OF SPANGLER, O'LAUGHLIN, 
 
 ATZERODT, MUDD, AND ARNOLD 60 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL WHAT SORT OF TRIAL SHOULD 
 
 BF GIVEN, CIVIL OR MILITARY 82 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 A MILITARY COMMISSION ITS NATURE, CONSTITUTION, DUTIES, AND 
 
 JURISDICTION 96 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL 98 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE 
 AND SPECIFICATIONS, FOR WHICH DAVIS AND HIS CANADA CABI- 
 NET WERE RESPONSIBLE 118 
 
 13
 
 1 4 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SUSTAIN ITS CHARGE AND 
 
 SPECIFICATIONS 147 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AGAINST DAVIS AND HIS ASSOCIATES IN 
 
 THIS CRIME 163 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 A CRITICISM OF NICOLAY AND HAY 177 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 JACOB THOMPSON'S BANK ACCOUNT WHAT BECAME OF THE MONEY . 182 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 THE CASE OF MRS. SURRATT . . ... . . . . . 192 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 FATHER WALTER 204 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 CONCLUSION 211 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN H. SURRATT 212 
 
 PART II. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL . 229 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 A CRITICISM OF THE DEFENSE 253 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
 DEFENSE, AND THEIR ANIMUS TOWARD THE GOVERNMENT AND 
 APPEALS TO THE POLITICAL PREJUDICES OF JURORS . . . 259 
 
 APPENDIX 317 
 
 PREFACE TO APPENDIX 319 
 
 ARGUMENT OF JOHN A. BINGHAM 325 
 
 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND JUDGE HOLT . . 407
 
 PART I. 
 
 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN.
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 THE rebellion of the slave-holding states, and the attempt to 
 establish a separate government by force of arms, was solely in 
 the interest of the institution of slavery. The Southern Confed- 
 eracy was to rest on this institution as its corner-stone. By the 
 establishment of the Confederacy it was intended to end, forever, 
 the agitation of this question, and establish the system of human 
 slavery as one of the permanent institutions of the world. And 
 all this in the nineteenth century of the Christian era ! Prepara- 
 tory to this the pulpit and the press had been suborned, the 
 Christian conscience of the country had been debauched, and the 
 doctrine that slavery was a Divine institution was taught, and 
 accepted as true, by one-half of the American people. 
 
 A doctor of divinity, or even a common preacher, who could 
 prove this to his own satisfaction, and that of his hearers, at once 
 achieved popularity, and had his great learning and ability heralded 
 by the secular press throughout the South land. Neither was this 
 kind of preaching confined to the South. It found a distinct and 
 earnest echo in many places in the North. It was argued, and no 
 doubt sincerely believed, that slavery was the best condition for 
 securing the happiness and welfare of the African race the condi- 
 tion in which the negro could be most useful to the world ; that 
 his condition had been greatly improved by his transplantation from 
 
 a heathen land and the environments of barbarism to a Christian 
 
 
 
 land and civilized and Christian environments ; and that subjection 
 to a higher and superior race was necessary to his deriving the high- 
 est benefit from the change. Slavery, it was taught, was a patri- 
 archal institution, and that it was only through it that the highest 
 ideal of human civilization could be attained. It was natural that 
 
 17
 
 I 8 ASSASSINA TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 a people whose judgment had crystalized around such opinions as 
 these should be intolerant of opposition, as they had closed the 
 door to discussion on this question ; and so for several generations a 
 contrary opinion was not tolerated, or allowed to find expression, in 
 the slave-holding states. The agitation of this question, in its 
 moral aspects, by constantly increasing numbers of earnest, able 
 men in the North, at last led to the organization of a political 
 party opposed to this institution, and the question of slavery thus 
 became a political question. 
 
 The friends of the institution instinctively recognized the danger 
 that thus confronted them, and began to strengthen their fences by 
 most stringent measures to repress discussion and shut out the 
 light. This was a tacit admission that they felt themselves unable 
 to stand before the world in argument. It may be laid down as 
 an axiom, that whenever a political party forecloses discussion on 
 any subject, but more especially on a great moral issue, it is not 
 only on the wrong side of that issue, but has an intuitive percep- 
 tion of that fact. 
 
 It may also be accepted as an axiom, that the more inconsistent 
 a man's attitude is on any great moral question the more intolerant 
 will he be of opposition. Not only were the most stringent laws 
 passed to prevent the discussion of the institution of slavery in its 
 moral aspects in the Southern States, but also the most lawless 
 and violent measures were resorted to, so that it was as much as 
 a man's life was worth to undertake to make a public argument 
 against slavery in a slave-holding state, and even to be found earn- 
 estly opposed to the institution in sentiment was to put personal 
 safety in jeopardy. The making of this question a political ques- 
 tion tended largely to de-sectionalize it. No party could hope 
 to succeed, as a National party, without the vote of the South, and 
 this could only be secured by concessions to the demands of the 
 slave holders in the interest of that institution ; and so the party 
 that was willing to concede the most to their demands became the 
 dominant party in the nation. Thus the leading Democratic poli- 
 ticians, all over the North, became the staunch advocates of 
 slavery ; and we all know with what blind confidence, and fierce 
 determination, the masses follow their political leaders. The cul-
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 19 
 
 mination of the contest over this question, resulting in the election 
 of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency by a party openly opposed 
 to slavery, caused its friends to take their appeal from the ballot 
 box to the sword ; and this appeal found those who were the 
 friends of the institution from political party considerations scattered 
 all over the North in quite formidable numbers, constituting an 
 enemy in the rear of our armies that gave to the administration of 
 President Lincoln no little anxiety and embarrassment, making it 
 necessary for him, as early as September, 1862, to proclaim martial 
 law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in respect to all persons 
 in the United States who were found to be actively disloyal, and 
 engaged in efforts to aid the rebellion. The following is a copy of 
 his proclamation : 
 
 GENERAL ORDERS NO. 141. 
 
 WAR DEPARTMENT, 
 ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, 
 
 WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 1862. 
 
 The following Proclamation by the President is published for the information and 
 government of the Army and all concerned : 
 By the President of the United States of America. 
 A PROCLAMATION. 
 
 Whereas it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also 
 portions of the militia of the States by draft, in order to suppress the insurrection exist- 
 ing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordi- 
 nary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in 
 various ways to the insurrection : Now, therefore, be it ordered : First, That during 
 the existing insurrection, and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all rebels 
 and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons dis- 
 couraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal prac- 
 tice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States shall 
 be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by court-martial or military 
 commission. Second, That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all per- 
 sons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in 
 any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement, by any military 
 authority, or by sentence of any court-martial or military commission. In witness whereof 
 I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of 
 our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the 
 United States the eighty-seventh. 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 
 " By the President, 
 
 " WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 
 
 *' By order of the Secretary of War, 
 
 " L. THOMAS, Adjutant General." 
 
 "Official."
 
 20 ASSASSINA TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 This disloyal element was rendered much more formidable by 
 the fact of its perfect combination, through secret, oath-bound 
 organizations under the names of Knights of the Golden Circle and 
 Order of American Knights. These secret orders no doubt had 
 their origin in the South, preparatory to secession and war ; but 
 after the war had been commenced it was chiefly in the North 
 that they were useful to the rebel cause, and it was through these 
 that the assassination of the President-elect was to have been 
 accomplished at Baltimore when on his way to the Capital in 1861, 
 and thus his inauguration 'as President was to have been prevented. 
 We thus see the desperate character of the political leaders of the 
 rebellion, who were ready to frustrate the expressed will of the 
 people by resorting to assassination. We need not think strange 
 that a rebellion which was ready to resort to such means in its 
 incipiency should finally expire under the weight of this infamy. 
 
 By these secret organizations, the enemies of the government, 
 wherever they might be, possessed the means of a secret recog- 
 nition amongst their members. And under whatever circumstances 
 they might be placed, the obligations of their oath afforded them 
 confidence and security. They constituted a brotherhood, and by 
 their secret grips, signs, passwords, etc., they had a guarantee of 
 unity of sentiment and of purpose, and of faithfulness to each other 
 and to the obligations of their oath. 
 
 These organizations were regarded as allies by the rebel govern- 
 ment, and were counted on as a valuable factor to secure the suc- 
 cess of its arms. This element in the North kept itself in constant 
 communication with the rebel government and the rebel armies, 
 and thus, in a large degree, filled the place of spies in giving inform- 
 ation. To furnish facilities for communication with its friends in 
 the North, as also for various other purposes in aid of the rebel 
 cause, the Confederate Government sent a number of its ablest 
 civilians to Canada, at an early period of the war, as its secret 
 agents, who established their headquarters at Montreal. This cabal 
 consisted of the following persons : Jacob Thompson, who had been 
 Secretary of the Interior under Buchanan's administration ; Clem- 
 ent C. Clay, who had been a United States Senator from Alabama ; 
 Beverly Tucker, who had been a Circuit Judge in Virginia; George
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 21 
 
 N. Sanders, William C. Cleary, Prof. Holcomb, George Harper, 
 and others. Of these, Thompson, Tucker, and Clay seem to have 
 held semi-official positions, and we will designate them as Davis's 
 Canada Cabinet. The others named, as also others unnamed above, 
 appear to have acted as aids, in a subordinate capacity, in the exe- 
 cution of their plots. They all claimed to be acting as agents of 
 the Rebel Government upon their oaths on the trial for the extra- 
 dition of the St. Alban's raiders. 
 
 The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the writ of 
 habeas corpus in September, 1862, had the effect of restraining the 
 open, active efforts of these secret disloyal organizations to cripple 
 the resources at Mr. Lincoln's command for suppressing the rebel- 
 lion, inasmuch as any such efforts were met by arrest, military trial, 
 and imprisonment ; yet, inasmuch as they created a necessity for a 
 military police at all important points in the North, they felt that 
 they were still rendering valuable service to the rebellion by thus 
 weakening the force at the front ; and whilst it was necessary to 
 conduct their operations with much more secrecy, their organiza- 
 tions were not disbanded. They went on to effect a complete mili- 
 tary organization, thoroughly officered and drilled, and in many 
 cases armed, holding themselves ready to take the field in any emer- 
 gency that might arise that would justify so bold a measure. The 
 Canada Cabinet watched over these organizations with great inter- 
 est, and directed their operations, and by many schemes sought to 
 bring about an emergency that would enable them to bring this army, 
 which they had hidden away in secrecy, into the field of active oper- 
 ations for the success of their cause. The officers of these secret 
 military organizations were chosen from the local political leaders in 
 the different localities where they existed, and kept themselves in 
 communication with the Canada Cabinet, and through this medium 
 the Confederate Government was kept informed of their strength, 
 organization, plans, and purposes. So bold and active did they 
 become, in spite of the efforts of the military police for their sup- 
 pression, that the government finally found it necessary, through 
 its secret service department, to possess itself of a thorough knowl- 
 edge of these organizations, and in this way was enabled to cap- 
 ture the arms and munitions of war which had been secured and
 
 22 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 were hidden away in secrecy by them, and also to arrest the lead- 
 ing officers of these organizations in several states. Whilst by 
 these means these treasonable combinations were seriously crip- 
 pled, they were unchanged in animus and still struggled to main- 
 tain their existence. They kept themselves in communication with 
 the Canada conspirators, and ready to co-operate with them for 
 the success of their schemes should the conditions become suffi- 
 ciently promising to justify them in declaring themselves openly. 
 
 It was in the summer of 1864 that Jacob Thompson, according 
 to the testimony before the Commission, declared that he had his 
 friends all over the Northern States, who were willing to go to any 
 length in order to serve the cause of the South. Jefferson Davis's 
 Canada Cabinet kept up a constant correspondence with their 
 chief, through secret agents who travelled directly through the 
 states, and even through the city of Washington. 
 
 So potent was the aid of secret signs, grips, pass-words, etc., as 
 a means of recognition, and so universally were the members of 
 these secret orders diffused over the country, that they could go 
 anywhere. Should one agent find it necessary to stop his task 
 for fear of detection, another would take it up ; and where men 
 could not go, women went, to carry communications. The Canada 
 Cabinet was well supplied with money by the government at 
 Richmond, and in this department of the service Jacob Thomp- 
 son seems to have been Secretary of the Treasury. He kept his 
 deposits largely in the Ontario Bank of Montreal, and his credits 
 there arose from Southern bills of exchange on London. The 
 object of the writer in this introductory chapter has been to place 
 clearly before his readers the formidable character of the conspi- 
 racy, which, with the President of the Confederacy at its head, and 
 organized by his Canada Cabinet, was intended to throw the loyal 
 North into a state of chaotic confusion and bring to the aid of 
 their sinking cause the disloyal element all over the North, by a 
 series of assassinations which would leave the nation without a civil 
 and military head and without any constitutional way of electing 
 another President, and at the same time would deprive the armies 
 of the United States of a lawful commander. This was the last 
 card of the political leaders of the rebellion, the last desperate
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 2$ 
 
 resort to retrieve a cause that had been manifestly lost in open war- 
 fare. It may seem like temerity in the writer to make such a 
 charge involving a total disregard of the laws of civilized warfare, 
 and such utter moral depravity on the part of these conspirators, 
 and to claim for their wicked project the approval of Jefferson 
 Davis, but the evidence in the possession of the government and 
 adduced before the Commission, it will be seen, fully justified the 
 government in making this charge. The persons brought before 
 the Commission, though in full sympathy in sentiment with their 
 employers, were merely the tools and hired assassins of the 'Canada 
 Cabinet, acting under the advice and sanction of their chief. I 
 shall now proceed to bring before my readers the denouement of 
 their plot, and, from the evidence given before the Commission, 
 show that the origin, scope and purpose of the conspiracy have 
 been truly indicated above.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PREPARATIONS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE PLOT. 
 
 THE evidence which will be hereafter referred to shows that 
 John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt had, as early as the 
 latter part of October, or early in November, 1864, entered into a 
 contract with Davis's Canada Cabinet to accomplish the assassi- 
 nations they had planned, and that they immediately entered upon 
 their work of preparation. It would seem from the evidence, that 
 at that time the purpose was to execute their designs at a much 
 earlier date than they did ; and that this delay was occasioned by 
 the Canada conspirators. 
 
 Surratt and Booth, however, were busied from that time on in 
 making their preparations. The first step was to enlist in the con- 
 spiracy a sufficient number of competent and reliable assistants, to 
 each one of whom was assigned the part he was to take in it, and 
 to train, equip, and prepare him for the part assigned him. The 
 assassination of President Lincoln had fallen to Payne by lot ; and 
 to him was entrusted the task of making all needed preparations. 
 Payne had visited Canada during the fall of 1 864, and probably 
 there made the acquaintance of Booth. To a man of Booth's sagac- 
 ity, a mere glance at Payne would be sufficient to impress him 
 with the idea that he was one of the helpers he wanted ; and as we 
 find him as early as February, 1865, transplanted to Washington 
 City by Booth and Surratt, and from that time on associating with 
 them very intimately but very secretly, and without employment, 
 or visible means, passing back and forth between Washington and 
 Baltimore, and finally provided with quarters in Washington by 
 Surratt, there can be no doubt that he was early enlisted in the 
 conspiracy, and supported by the Canada Cabinet through their 
 agents in Washington Booth and Surratt. The author is led to 
 24
 
 J. WII KES BOOTH.
 
 PREPARATIONS FOR EXECUTION OF THE PLOT. 2$ 
 
 conclude from studying the evidence that Booth and Surratt were 
 acting under a considerable latitude of provisional instructions, 
 and that to them was entrusted the selection of the time and place 
 for the accomplishment of their purpose. There were a number 
 of persons in Canada, members of the conspiracy, who were ex- 
 pected to take an active part in its execution ; and it is altogether 
 probable that the original plan contemplated the accomplishment 
 of these assassinations as opportunities could be found or made, 
 and that for each one a man had been assigned. 
 
 John Wilkes Booth and John Harrison Surratt were the leaders 
 of the conspiracy in Washington, they having proposed to their 
 co-conspirators in Canada to accomplish for them the assassina- 
 tions they had planned. 
 
 They were stimulated by their intense hostility to the admin- 
 istration of President Lincoln and desire for the establishment of 
 the Southern Confederacy, and also by the delusive idea of winning 
 enduring fame and the lasting gratitude of their countrymen of the 
 South for being thus the instruments of retrieving the fortunes of 
 their dying cause. But in addition to these considerations, they 
 had large promises of pecuniary reward. They were, in fact, the 
 hired assassins of Jefferson Davis and his Canada Cabinet. 
 
 These two men had been engaged for months in making their 
 preparations for the assassination of the President, Vice-President, 
 Secretary Seward, and General Grant. They visited and con- 
 ferred with the Canada conspirators from time to time during the 
 summer and fall of 1864, and early winter of 1865. They traversed 
 the counties of Prince George, Charles, and St. Mary's, Maryland, 
 lying along the north side of the Potomac below Washington, to 
 prepare the way for escape by securing confederates along the 
 contemplated route who would assist in facilitating their flight by 
 aiding them in their progress, or by concealing them if necessary. 
 Booth had spent some time in this work during the fall and early 
 winter, making himself familiar with the geography of the coun- 
 try, roads, etc., under the pretence that he desired to purchase 
 lands in Maryland. He found in Charles County Dr. S. A. 
 Mudd, who sympathized with his plans, and entered into them 
 at least so far as to pledge him any assistance he could give him
 
 26 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 in making his escape. Mudd also visited Booth two or three 
 times in Washington during the winter, introducing him on the 
 occasion of his first visit to John H. Surratt; and in the course of 
 these visits he was always found in company with Booth and 
 others of the conspirators who were to take an active part in its 
 accomplishment, and was no doubt kept well informed of the 
 progress of their preparations, and of the time when it would be 
 attempted after that had been determined upon. Surratt also 
 spent much time during the winter in this part of Maryland, 
 in preparation for the work. Being at home there, he could 
 render Booth valuable assistance by procuring friends who would 
 aid him in his flight, and in getting him across the Potomac at 
 the selected point. As this was on the line of a regular under- 
 ground mail route between Washington and Richmond, with which 
 Surratt was familiar, he, of course, had no difficulty in making 
 satisfactory arrangerrients, the great mass of the population in all 
 of these counties being intensely disloyal. 
 
 They had selected and arranged with Payne, Atzerodt, O'Laugh- 
 lin, Arnold, Herold, Spangler, and numerous other parties who 
 were never made known, to take an active part in the work of 
 assassination, or to aid them in their escape. Booth and Surratt 
 had provided horses for the occasion, and, with Atzerodt and 
 Herold, were known to a number of liverymen of whom they were 
 liberal and frequent patrons. 
 
 Surratt provided quarters for Payne at the Herndon House, 
 representing him to be a delicate gentleman, and stipulating that 
 his meals should be served to him in his room. Atzerodt, who 
 was to have assassinated the Vice-President, had taken a room at 
 the Pennsylvania House. Booth, being an actor, and familiar with 
 the routine of the play and the work of the assistants on the stage, 
 having selected Ford's Theatre as the place for the accomplishment 
 of his purpose, proceeded to make himself at home amongst the 
 habitues of that establishment. He was a very handsome man, 
 stylish in his dress, dissolute in his habits, a constant and free 
 drinker, generous in the expenditure of his money on his vices of 
 smoking and drinking, and of great personal magnetism. He soon 
 ingratiated himself with the employees of the theatre, and became a 
 general favorite.
 
 PREPARATIONS FOR EXECUTION OF THE PLOT. 27 
 
 It was necessary that he should have a co-conspirator at the 
 theatre to assist him in making his escape. He had labored hard 
 with an actor in New York by the name of Chester, with whom he 
 was acquainted, to engage him in the conspiracy, that he might 
 station him at the door of his exit, to see that his way should be 
 clear and the door open at the critical moment, for which service 
 he offered to pay him three thousand dollars ; but Chester, after 
 several interviews and much importunity, absolutely declined, and 
 begged Booth never to mention the matter to him again. Failing 
 to secure Chester, he turned his attention to Edward Spangler, an 
 employee at the theatre. Spangler was a man of dissipated habits, 
 low moral tone, and little intellectual culture, and being politically 
 in sympathy with Booth, he was easily led by him into the conspir- 
 acy. Booth had had a shed fitted up as a stable in an alley back 
 of the theatre, and had kept his horse in it occasionally for some 
 time previous, that he might have it convenient when the supreme 
 moment should have arrived, without exciting suspicion. To 
 reach the private box fitted up on the occasion for the occupancy 
 of the President and General Grant, with their wives, it was neces- 
 sary \Q pass through two doors. The first led into a passage behind 
 the box, the second from this passage into the box. To prevent 
 any one from following him into the passage and hindering the 
 accomplishment of his purpose, Booth had cut, himself, or more 
 likely had had Spangler, who was a kind of rough carpenter, cut 
 a mortise in the plastering of the passage wall, in such a position 
 with reference to the door that the end of a wooden bar, three and 
 a half feet long, which had been prepared for that purpose, could 
 be inserted in the mortise, and the other end placed against the 
 panel of the door so that it could not be opened from the outside. 
 
 That ingress to this passage might not be prevented by the 
 bolting of the door by the President and his party after entering, 
 the screws of the fastenings had been drawn, so that it could be 
 easily pushed open. A hole had been bored through the door to 
 the box, opposite where the President's chair was placed, with a 
 small bit, and reamed out with a knife, so that Booth could, after 
 gaining the passage and barring the door behind him, peep through 
 this hole and assure himself of the exact position of his intended
 
 28 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 victim. The manner in which all of these arrangements had been 
 made, the mortise in the plastered wall, the bar of wood fitted to 
 the mortise, and in length having been exactly prepared to fit 
 against the panel of the door and act as a brace, show that all 
 these preparations had been made with the greatest forethought 
 and care. 
 
 About three weeks previous to the assassination, John H. Sur- 
 ratt, Herold, and Atzerodt brought to the tavern at Surrattsville, 
 in Maryland, about ten miles below Washington City, owned by 
 Mrs. Surratt, and at the time occupied by a man by the name of 
 Lloyd, two carbines, with ammunition, a monkey-wrench, and a 
 piece of rope. Surratt asked Lloyd to take charge of these things 
 and keep them secreted, saying they would be called for before a 
 great while, at the same time showing him a suitable place about 
 the house in which to hide them. The Surratt family had lived 
 in this house and kept a country tavern until within a few months 
 previous, when they had removed to Washington, renting their 
 tavern to Lloyd, so that Surratt was much more familiar with the 
 house than Lloyd. These things, as we shall see, were placed 
 there for the use of Booth and his companion in their flight 'after 
 the assassination. As a precautionary measure, Booth, on the 
 Tuesday before the assassination, sought an interview with Mrs. 
 Surratt, who shortly after that interview discovered that she had 
 some private business at Surrattsville that had to be attended to 
 that day, and so she asked Mr. Wiechmann, a young man who had 
 been a boarder at her house for several months, to drive her down, 
 saying that she wanted to go and see a Mr. Nothey who owed 
 her some money. She then sent Wiechmann to Booth, to get his 
 horse and buggy for the drive. Booth told Wiechmann that he 
 had sold his horse and buggy, but gave him ten dollars with which 
 to procure one. Meeting Lloyd on the way down, driving up to 
 Washington, they stopped ; Lloyd got out of his buggy and went 
 to the side of Mrs. Surratt's buggy, on which she was sitting, when 
 Mrs. Surratt told Lloyd, as he afterwards testified, in a low voice, 
 so that Wiechmann did not hear what she said, to have those 
 shooting irons ready, or handy, as they would be called for be- 
 fore long. On the day of the assassination Booth again had a
 
 PREPARATIONS FOR EXECUTION OF THE PLOT. 29 
 
 private interview with Mrs. Surratt, after which she again asked 
 Wiechmann to drive her down to Surrattsville, claiming the same 
 errand as before. On this occasion she sought an opportunity for 
 a private interview with Lloyd, when she told him to have the 
 carbines handy, as they would be called for that night, at the 
 same time handing him a field-glass, which Booth had given to 
 her, and telling him to have two bottles of whiskey ready. 
 
 John H. Surratt left Washington for Richmond on the 25th of 
 March and returned to Washington on the 3d of April, leaving for 
 Montreal on the evening of the same day. He showed to Wiechmann 
 an old college friend and, at this time, a boarder in his mother's 
 house nine or eleven twenty-dollar gold pieces, and sixty dollars 
 in greenbacks, on his return from Richmond. Surratt, in his Rock- 
 ville lecture, admits that he received two hundred dollars in gold 
 from Benjamin to pay expenses and remunerate for services. 
 Surratt left Washington for Canada on the evening of the 3d 
 of April, and we find him, by the evidence, in Montreal on the 
 6th, where he delivered to Thompson a cipher dispatch from 
 Jefferson Davis, and a letter from Mr. Benjamin, of Davis's 
 Richmond Cabinet. After reading these documents, Thompson, 
 laying his hand on them, said, " This makes the thing all right." 
 The sanction of the rebel president to his arrangements with the 
 assassins had been obtained, and authority also for the expendi- 
 ture of funds to fulfil the contract. The Canada conspirators who 
 were to take a part prepared at once, and started for the States, 
 boasting to their friends that they would hear of the death of Old 
 Abe and others before ten days. This was on the 8th of April, 
 and nothing now remained but to find, and use, an opportunity ; 
 and Booth selected the appearance of the President at the theatre 
 as affording the opportunity he sought, and proceeded to make 
 all his arrangements accordingly. 
 
 All things were now ready. Booth had selected the route for 
 his escape and had provided to be furnished with a field-glass, two 
 carbines, and two bottles of whiskey at Surrattsville, having sent 
 a notice to Lloyd to have them ready, as they would be called for 
 that night. He had provided horses from a livery-stable for him- 
 self and Herold, who was to accompany him. He had also pro-
 
 30 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 vided a horse for Payne, whose part was to murder Secretary 
 Seward. He had assembled his assistants in Washington, to one of 
 whom, Michael O'Laughlin, he had assigned the task of the assas- 
 sination of General Grant; and having made these preparations, 
 he spent the day and afternoon of the I4th of April looking after the 
 matter generally, and keeping up his courage, or rather reckless- 
 ness, with frequent potations of whiskey. To Payne he had given 
 a one-eyed bay horse, which he had purchased of a man by the 
 name of Gardner, a neighbor of Dr. Samuel Mudd, in Charles 
 County, Maryland. Mudd accompanied him, and introduced him 
 to Gardner as a man who was desirous of purchasing land in that 
 part of Maryland, and who wished a good driving horse that he 
 could use for a short time. During the afternoon of the I4th, 
 Booth, Herold, and Atzerodt hired horses from liverymen, and 
 were to be seen riding here and there about the streets of Wash- 
 ington, frequently stopping at saloons to refresh themselves with 
 that which obtunds all moral sensibility and makes men reckless 
 in wickedness. Booth was acting the part of a general mustering 
 his forces for the conflict, part of which he thus displayed openly, 
 but keeping another part in concealment. He kept himself in 
 active communication with all, and delivered his orders and 
 instructions. Feeling the full force of the responsibility of his 
 engagment, and earnestly intent on its complete and thorough 
 accomplishment, he attended in person to every detail to make 
 failure, if possible, an impossibility. 
 
 It would seem that a previous attempt had been made to assassi- 
 nate the President, which had resulted in a failure. It was known 
 that President Lincoln was in the habit of riding out to the Soldiers' 
 Home of evenings, passing through a lonely suburb of the city un- 
 guarded. Some time in March, John Wilkes Booth, John H. Surratt, 
 Payne, Atzerodt, Herold, and two others, left the house of Mrs. 
 Surratt about two o'clock in the afternoon, on horseback, armed 
 with revolvers and bowie-knives, and returned about six o'clock 
 under the greatest possible excitement of rage and disappoint- 
 ment. All the evidence went to show that this expedition was 
 regarded by them as one of the greatest importance, involving the 
 necessity of leaving the city, perhaps for good, as their return in
 
 PREPARATIONS FOR EXECUTION OF THE PLOT. 31 
 
 the evening was as much of a surprise to their friends as it was 
 an occasion of dissatisfaction to themselves. I think there can 
 hardly be a doubt that they expected to intercept the President 
 on his way to the Home, and were lying in wait for him with the 
 purpose of there assassinating him, and then making their escape. 
 The President, however, upon the earnest advice of his cabinet, 
 had yielded the point of riding unprotected and alone, and had 
 accepted the protection of an escort of cavalry on these rides. 
 Booth and his party finding him thus guarded had been compelled 
 to abandon the idea of thus finding an opportunity to assassinate 
 him, and so had to prepare a new plan of operations. There was 
 a rumor, which found its way into the papers about this time, that 
 there was a plot to capture the President and carry him a prisoner 
 to Richmond ; but however much Booth's pride and vanity might 
 have impelled him to achieve the notoriety that would have at- 
 tended the accomplishment of such a feat, the difficulties and 
 dangers attending its accomplishment must have been too obvious 
 to a man of Booth's sagacity, and its success involved in too much 
 uncertainty, to have justified him in making such an attempt. 
 
 In view of all the facts, I conclude that the real purpose of 
 Booth and his party on the occasion referred to was to murder 
 the President, and trust to flight for concealment and safety. But 
 now Booth was fully possessed with the idea of the practicabil- 
 ity of his present plan, and was determined to know no such 
 word as fail ; and that it was entirely possible that, but for a Pro- 
 vidential interference, he might have made good his escape after 
 murdering the President, we shall hereafter see. 
 
 President Lincoln had been convinced by the most undoubted 
 proofs that a plan for his assassination at Baltimore whilst on his 
 way to Washington, in 1861, to assume the responsibilities of the 
 office to which he had been called by the choice of the people, 
 had been arranged and prepared for by his enemies, and had only 
 been prevented of its execution by the strategic movement planned 
 by his friends, by which he passed through that city during the 
 night previous to the morning on which he was expected. 
 
 " From the very beginning of his Presidency Mr. Lincoln had 
 been constantly subject to the threats of his enemies and the
 
 32 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 warnings of his friends. The threats came in every form : his 
 mail was infested with brutal and vulgar menace, mostly anony- 
 mous, the proper expression of vile and cowardly minds. 
 
 " The warnings were not less numerous ; the vaporings of vil- 
 lage bullies, the extravagancies of excited secessionist politicians, 
 even the drolling of practical jokers, were faithfully reported to 
 him by zealous or nervous friends. Most of these communica- 
 tions received no notice. In cases where there seemed a ground 
 for inquiry it was made, as carefully as possible, by the President's 
 private secretary and by the War Department, but always without 
 substantial results. 
 
 " Warnings that appeared to be most definite, when they came 
 to be examined proved too vague and confused for further atten- 
 tion. The President was too intelligent not to know he was in 
 some danger. Madmen frequently made their way to the very 
 door of the executive offices, and sometimes into Mr. Lincoln's 
 presence. 
 
 " He had himself so sane a mind, and a heart so kindly even to 
 his enemies, that it was hard for him to believe in a political hatred 
 so deadly as to lead to murder. He would sometimes laughingly 
 say, ' Our friends on the other side would make nothing by ex- 
 changing me for Hamlin,' the Vice-President having the reputation 
 of more radical views than his chief. He knew, indeed, that incite- 
 ments to murder him were not uncommon in the South. An adver- 
 tisement had appeared in a paper of Selma, Alabama, in December, 
 1864, opening a subscription for funds to affect the assassination 
 of Lincoln, Seward, and Johnson before the inauguration." 
 
 In view of all this danger he would say " that he could not pos- 
 sibly guard against it unless he were to shut himself up in an iron 
 box, in which condition he could scarcely perform the duties of a 
 President. By the hand of a murderer he could only die once ; 
 to go continually in fear would be to die over and over." 
 
 To his faithful and devoted friend, Father Chiniquy, who on 
 several occasions warned him of his danger, and of the ultimate 
 source of its inspiration, he said, " I see no other way than to be 
 always prepared to die. I know my danger; but man must not 
 
 1 " Life of Lincoln," by Nicolay and Hay, Century Magazine, pp. 431-32.
 
 PREPARATIONS FOR EXECUTION OF THE PLOT. 33 
 
 care how and where he dies, provided he dies at the post of honor 
 and duty.'' 
 
 We have come to the point now where we find, on the part of 
 his murderers, all things ready for his taking off ; and their intended 
 victim prepared in mind for his fate, and ready to " die at the post 
 of honor and duty." What a fearful, and at the same time, sublime 
 spectacle ! The powers of light and the powers of darkness were 
 contending, as ever, for the supremacy. Satan, the usurper, claims 
 this world for his kingdom. He has seduced and enslaved the 
 human race, and, by every false and cunning device, is always re- 
 sisting every movement that looks to the disenthralment of man- 
 kind, and bringing the world back to its allegiance to God, its 
 rightful sovereign. How sublime was the faith of President 
 Lincoln in the ultimate triumph of the right ! How sincerely and 
 believingly could he have sung, 
 
 " Thy saints in all this glorious war, 
 
 Shall conquer though they die; 
 They see the triumph from afar, 
 By faith they bring it nigh."
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND ATTEMPTED ASSASSINA- 
 TION OF SECRETARY SEWARD. 
 
 ON the morning of the I4th of April, 1865, the President's 
 messenger went to Ford's Theatre in Washington City and en- 
 gaged a private box for the President and General Grant, with 
 their wives, to witness the play of " Our American Cousin," which 
 was to be rendered there that night. The heavy burden of re- 
 sponsibility, the weight of cares and anxieties which had for four 
 long years rested on the head of President Lincoln in his official 
 position of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief 
 of its army and navy, employed during all that time in suppressing 
 a gigantic rebellion of the slave-holding States of the South against 
 the constitutional and lawful authority of the government, and 
 which had followed him into his second term of office, upon 
 which he had just entered, had been partially lifted by the sig- 
 nal success of the Union arms at Appomattox, and the surrender 
 of Lee's army. General Grant, who had just accepted the uncon- 
 ditional surrender of that army, and finished the work of dismiss- 
 ing to their homes the officers and men who had composed it 
 (and who for four long years had fought with such magnificent 
 bravery, and manifested such earnestness and determinedness of 
 purpose in a cause which, though bad, was no doubt esteemed by 
 them to be just), under no other condition than that they should 
 return to their homes and the pursuits of peaceful life, and desist 
 from all further acts of hostility against the government they had 
 sought, but failed, to overthrow, had gone to Washington to 
 talk over the situation with the President and Secretary of War, 
 and to decide on future operations for the speedy establishment 
 of peace. With the surrender of Lee's army, and the successful 
 34
 
 ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT. 35 
 
 march of Sherman from Atlanta to the sea, and his almost un- 
 resisted progress up the coast toward the Nation's Capital, it was 
 obvious that the rebellion had collapsed, and that the return of 
 peace was just at hand. All loyal hearts throughout the land 
 throbbed with joy, and praise and thanksgiving ascended to Him 
 who had stamped the righteousness of the union cause with the 
 signet of His approbation, in thus giving us the victory after a long 
 and bloody contest. The years of sacrifice, toil, suffering and 
 danger were almost forgotten in the gladness of that hour ; and 
 the war-scarred veterans in the field, and their friends at home, 
 were rejoicing at the prospect of a speedy re-union, under skies of 
 peace. It was an hour big with the memories of the past and 
 hopes of the future. When we think of what President Lincoln 
 had endured through all these years of the war ; of his unfalter- 
 ing purpose to discharge all the duties of his official oath, by pro- 
 tecting, defending and preserving the constitution of his country ; 
 of the formidable difficulties that had to be met and overcome 
 difficulties thrown across his pathway often by friends, always by 
 foes ; when we remember his largeness of soul, his unbounded 
 love of, and sympathy with, mankind ; his all controlling love of 
 his country and her institutions of freedom ; his patient tolera- 
 tion of opposing views of martial and of political policy ; his self- 
 poise, and almost infallible appreciation of the situation and its 
 demands, in whatever circumstances he might be placed ; his kind- 
 ness of nature and goodness of heart, we can well conceive what 
 must have been his fullness of joy on this the last day of his 
 sojourn on earth. God, in his providence, led him to the opening 
 of a vista through which his patriotic and philanthropic soul could 
 swell with delightful anticipations of the greatness, the glory, and the 
 happiness that should accrue- to mankind through his faithfulness 
 to the obligations of his official oath, by which he had vindicated 
 his authority, and brought to a right solution the great moral ques- 
 tion underlying the contest, and thus had made our beloved land 
 a land of freedom in fact, as well as in name. He saw a new and 
 glorious era about to dawn on his country. Like Moses, however, 
 he was only permitted, in vision, to look over into the promised 
 land the great future of his beloved country.
 
 36 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 It is consoling to thus know that to the great Lincoln his last 
 day on earth was the happiest, and at the same time, the meekest 
 day of his life. His biographers, Nicolay and Hay, who were 
 able to write from personal association with, and observation of, 
 this great man, inform us that on this day his soul was filled with 
 the kindliest feelings toward his enemies, and in his last conference 
 with his cabinet his policy of dealing with them was shadowed 
 forth as free from feelings of revenge or desire for the punishment 
 of any. He desired that no man should lose his life for the part 
 he had taken in the rebellion. He held " malice toward none," 
 and was filled with " charity for all." His passage from time to 
 eternity, though brought about by the bullet of an assassin, was 
 a passage through a triumphal arch, whose further portal was the 
 gate of heaven. 
 
 The presence of General Grant was known to the city, and it 
 was noised abroad that both he and President Lincoln would 
 honor the theatre with their presence on that evening. The 
 public knowledge of this fact was calculated to bring out a 
 brilliant and large assemblage of people. The loyal citizens 
 would be there to give to the President and the successful and 
 popular commander of his armies in the field a heartfelt and 
 royal ovation in this the hour of their triumph. All felt happy 
 and secure. That they were coming together to witness, on that 
 night, the awful tragedy of the assassination of the nation's head, 
 President Lincoln, was not dreamed of by any except those who 
 had made every preparation in advance for accomplishing the 
 murderous plot, and who were stealthily slipping about through 
 the assembling crowds, like fiends, to assure themselves that 
 every arrangement for the successful accomplishment of their 
 hellish purpose was complete. During the day General Grant 
 received a telegram that called him to Philadelphia on business, 
 and owing to this apparently providential circumstance he was 
 prevented from accompanying the President to the theatre on that 
 eventful night, and also, in all probability, from being, with the 
 President, a victim of the plot, in which there is good reason to 
 conclude, from all the evidence, his life was included, and that 
 for him an assassin had been provided.
 
 ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT. 37 
 
 In lieu of General and Mrs. Grant, President Lincoln had taken 
 Major Rathbone and Miss Harris, the step-son and daughter of 
 Senator Harris, of New York, into the Presidential party. On 
 reaching the theatre at a somewhat late hour, and after the play 
 had commenced, as soon as the presence of the President became 
 known, the actors stopped playing, the band struck up " Hail to 
 the Chief," and the audience rose and received him with vociferous 
 cheering. 
 
 The party proceeded along the rear of the dress circle, and 
 entered the box that had been prepared for them, the President 
 taking the rocking chair that had been placed there for him on 
 the left of the box, and nearest to the audience, about four feet 
 from the door of entrance to the box. Major Rathbone and the 
 ladies found seats on the President's right. During this time the 
 conspirators were on the alert, scanning the situation, passing about 
 so as to keep up a communication with each other, in preparation 
 for their work. Booth had arranged with Payne to assassinate 
 Secretary Seward at the same time that he would assassinate the 
 President ; and no doubt had planned for Payne, after accomplish- 
 ing his task, to join him and Herold in their flight, crossing the 
 Eastern Branch at the Navy Yard bridge, and then to pass down 
 through Maryland and cross the Potomac, at a selected point, into 
 Virginia, where they might consider themselves as being safe 
 amongst their friends. Secretary Seward was known to have 
 received severe injuries from the upsetting of his carriage, and 
 to be lying in a critical condition under the care of Dr. Verdi. 
 Booth had planned to take advantage of this circumstance for 
 gaining admittance for Payne into the sick chamber, where, by 
 springing with the ferocity of a tiger upon the sick man, he might 
 make quick work in dispatching him with his dagger. To this 
 end he had prepared a package rolled up in paper, and had 
 schooled Payne in the artifice, teaching him to represent himself as 
 having been sent by Dr. Verdi with this package of medicine, which 
 it was necessary he should deliver in person, as he had important 
 verbal directions as to the manner of its use, which required him 
 to see the Secretary. 
 
 About ten o'clock Booth rode up the alley back of the theatre
 
 38 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 where he had been accustomed to keep his horse, and having 
 reached the rear entrance, called for Ned three times, each time 
 a little louder than before. At the third call Ned Spangler 
 answered to his summons by appearing at the door. Booth's first 
 salutation was in the form of a question : " Ned, you will help me 
 all you can, won't you?" To which Spangler replied, "Oh, 
 yes ! " Booth then requested him to send " Peanuts " (a boy 
 employed about the theatre), to hold his horse. Spangler gave 
 the boy orders to do this, and upon the boy making the objection 
 that he might be out of place at the time he had a duty to per- 
 form, Spangler bade him go, saying that he would stand responsi- 
 ble for him. The boy then took the reins, and held the horse for 
 about half an hour, until Booth returned to reward him with a 
 curse and a kick, as he jerked the rein from him preparatory to 
 remounting for his flight. After entering the theatre, Booth 
 passed rapidly across the stage, glancing at the box occupied by 
 his intended victim, and looking up his accomplices, he passed 
 out of the front door on to the walk where he was met by two of 
 his fellow conspirators. One of these was a low, villainous-look- 
 ing fellow, whilst the other was a very neatly-dressed man. Booth 
 held a private conference with these by the door where he and the 
 vulgar-looking fellow had stationed themselves. The neatly- 
 dressed man crossed the walk to the rear of the President's car- 
 riage and peeped into it. One of the witnesses, who was sitting 
 on the platform in front of the theatre, had his attention arrested 
 by the manner and conduct of these men, and so watched them 
 very closely. 
 
 It was at the close of the second act that Booth and his two 
 fellow conspirators appeared at the door. Booth said, " I think 
 he will come down now"; and they alligned themselves to await 
 his coming. Their communications with each other were in 
 whispered tones. Finding that the President would remain until 
 the close of the play, they then began to prepare to assassinate 
 him in the theatre. The neatly-dressed man called the time three 
 times in succession at short intervals, each time a little louder 
 than before. Booth now entered the saloon, took a drink of 
 whiskey, and then went at once into the theatre. He passed
 
 ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT. 39 
 
 quickly along next to the wall behind the chairs, and having 
 reached a point near the door that led to the passage behind the 
 box, he stopped, took a small pack of visiting cards from his 
 pocket, selected one and replaced the others ; stood a second with it 
 in his hand, and then showed it to the President's messenger, who 
 was sitting just below him, and then, without waiting, passed 
 through the door from the lobby into the passage, closing and 
 barring it after him. Taking a hasty, but careful, look through 
 the hole which he had had made in the door for the purpose of 
 assuring himself of the President's position, and cocking his pistol 
 and with his finger on the trigger, he pulled open the door, and 
 stealthily entered the box, where he stood right behind and within 
 three feet of the President. The play had advanced to the second 
 scene of the third act, and whilst the audience was intensely in- 
 terested Booth fired the fatal shot the ball penetrating the 
 skull on the back of the left side of the head, inflicting a wound in 
 the brain (the ball passing entirely through and lodging behind 
 the right eye), of which he died at about half-past seven o'clock 
 on the morning of the fifteenth. He was unconscious from the 
 moment he was struck until his spirit passed from earth. An 
 unspeakable calm settled on that remarkable face, leaving the 
 impress of a happy soul on the casket it had left behind. 
 
 Thus died the man who said, " Senator Douglass says he don't 
 care whether slavery is voted up, or voted down ; but God cares, 
 and humanity cares, and I care." 
 
 As soon as Booth had fired his pistol, and was satisfied that his 
 end was accomplished, he cried out, " Revenge for the South ! " 
 and throwing his pistol down, he took his dagger in his right 
 hand, and placed his left hand on the balustrade preparatory to 
 his leap of twelve feet to the stage. Just at this moment Major 
 Rathbone sprang forward and tried to catch him. In this he 
 failed, but received a severe cut in his arm from a back-handed 
 thrust of Booth's dagger. Time was everything now to the 
 assassin. He must make good his escape whilst the audience 
 stood dazed, and before it had time to comprehend clearly what 
 had happened. With his left hand on the railing, he boldly 
 leaped from the box to the stage. The front of the box had been
 
 4O ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 draped for the occasion with the American flag, which was 
 stretched across its front, and reached down nearly or quite to the 
 floor. In the descent, Booth's spur caught in the flag, tearing out 
 a piece which he dragged nearly half way across the stage. The 
 flag, however, was avenged for this double insult which he had put 
 upon it ; for by this entanglement his descent was deflected, caus- 
 ing him to strike the stage obliquely, and partially to fall, thus 
 fracturing the fibula of his left leg, on account of which injury 
 his flight was impeded, and his permanent escape made impossi- 
 ble. As he recovered himself from his partial fall and started to- 
 run across the stage with his dagger brandished aloft, he cried out 
 in a theatrical tone, " Sic semper tyrannis! " and quickly passed 
 out at a little back door opening into the alley where he had left 
 his horse, and, though closely pursued, succeeded in mounting, 
 and rode rapidly away. 
 
 Of course he could not afford to run any risks in regard to his 
 escape, and for all this he had made his arrangements in advance. 
 Spangler had faithfully redeemed his promise to render him all 
 the aid he could by keeping the passage to the door clear at the 
 critical moment, and also by doing all he could to retard pursuit. 
 When a fellow-employee cried out, "That was Booth ! " Ned ordered 
 him to shut up, saying " You don't know who it was." Booth 
 was closely pursued by a man by the name of Stewart, who fol- 
 lowed him into the alley, making every effort he could to stop 
 him ; but Booth kept his horse in motion, so that Stewart failed 
 to get hold of the rein, and the assassin was soon off at a rapid 
 pace. 
 
 Stewart testified that Spangler, or a man resembling him, stood 
 near the door, and could have prevented Booth's exit had he been 
 so disposed. It is evident his purpose was to aid, rather than 
 hinder, his escape. All the occupants of the stage, actors and 
 assistants, male and female, were in a state of confusion and 
 intense excitement except this man, who evidently had not been 
 taken by surprise, but was prepared in mind for what had 
 happened, and had played his part in the tragedy. 
 
 At the same hour that Booth fired the fatal shot, Payne 
 appeared at the door of Secretary Seward's house, in the guise
 
 ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT. 41 
 
 of a messenger from Dr. Verdi, holding in his hand the package 
 that Booth had prepared for him, and demanded to see the 
 Secretary, saying that he had a verbal message which was of 
 particular importance in regard to the use, or application of, the 
 medicine, and that he must see the Secretary himself. Dr. Verdi 
 had left his patient but a short time previous, and had consoled 
 the family that had for days been suffering the greatest anxiety on 
 account of the Secretary's condition by taking a favorable view of 
 the symptoms. The family, worn with watching and anxiety, were 
 disposing of themselves for the night. Major A. H. Seward had 
 retired to his room. Sergeant George F. Robinson, acting as attend- 
 ant nurse, was watching by the bedside, in company with Miss 
 Seward, the Secretary's daughter. Frederick Seward occupied the 
 room at the head of the stairs. All the rooms occupied by the 
 Secretary and his family were on the second floor, and were reached 
 by a flight of stairs in the hallway. 
 
 The second waiter, William H. Bell, a colored lad of nineteen, 
 was stationed at the hall door. Being somewhat relieved of their 
 anxiety by the doctor's favorable view of the case, all were 
 anticipating a night of quiet rest. The door bell rang, and was 
 responded to by Bell, the colored waiter. Immediately upon his 
 opening of the door, Payne stepped into the hall. He was a tall, 
 broad-shouldered, muscular man, as agile and ferocious as a 
 panther; a low-browed, scowling, villainous-looking specimen of 
 humanity, the animal preponderating largely in every feature of 
 his visage and expression of his countenance. There he stood, 
 holding in his left hand the package, and keeping his right hand 
 in his overcoat pocket. He demanded of the boy to be allowed 
 to see the Secretary, telling his story about being sent by Dr. 
 Verdi to deliver the medicine with his directions. The porter told 
 him that his orders were to admit no one, and that he could not see 
 Mr. Seward ; that he would deliver the package himself. To this 
 Payne would not consent, but persisted in saying that he must see 
 Mr. Seward. After considerable parleying, he started up stairs, 
 and the porter, seeing that he would go, and thinking that he 
 might complain of his conduct to the Secretary, asked him to 
 pardon him, to which Payne replied, " O, I know, that's all right."
 
 42 ASSASSfNA TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 He was wearing heavy boots, and took no pains to walk lightly 
 as he went up the stairs, whereupon the porter requested him 
 not to make so much noise, to which, however, he paid no atten- 
 tion. As he approached the head of the stairs, he was met by 
 Mr. Frederick Seward, who had been attracted by the noise, to 
 whom he said, " I want to see Mr. Seward." Frederick went into 
 his father's room, and finding him asleep, returned saying, " You 
 cannot see him." All this time Payne stood holding out the pack- 
 age in his left hand, grasping with his right hand the pistol in his 
 overcoat pocket. Frederick requested him to give him the pack- 
 age, saying he would deliver it ; but Payne persisted in saying that 
 that would not do ; he must see Mr. Seward, he must see him. 
 Frederick finally said, " I am the proprietor here, and -his son ; 
 if you cannot leave your message with me, you cannot leave it at 
 all." Payne still continued parleying with Frederick for some 
 time ; but finding that his talking availed nothing, he started as if 
 to go down stairs. This, however, was only a feint on his part in 
 order to throw Frederick off of his guard and to get rid of the 
 porter who stood behind him. He again walked so heavily that 
 the porter requested him not to make so much noise ; but at that 
 moment, Payne, having prepared himself for the encounter, turned 
 quickly, and making a spring towards Frederick, struck him two 
 or three times with the pistol, which he had all the time held in 
 his hand, fracturing his skull and knocking him senseless to the 
 floor. Having learned which was the room occupied by the 
 invalid by seeing Frederick go into it, Payne rushed past 
 the prostrate man, opened the door of the Secretary's room, and 
 was met by Sergeant Robinson. Having broken and thrown 
 down his revolver in his encounter with Frederick, he had drawn 
 his dagger, and at his first encounter with the sergeant he struck 
 him with his knife, cutting an ugly gash in his forehead, and 
 partially knocking him down. He then pressed rapidly fonvard, 
 knife in hand, to where the invalid lay in his bed. Throwing 
 himself upon him, he commenced striking at his face and neck 
 with his dagger. The Secretary was reclining in a half-sitting 
 posture, having the coverings well drawn up about his neck 
 and chin, to which circumstance the failure of the would-be
 
 ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT. 43 
 
 assassin to take his life was no doubt due. The sergeant, as soon 
 as he recovered his equilibrium, sprang upon Payne, and Major 
 Seward, having been awakened by the screams of his sister, sprang 
 into the room in his night-dress. Finding the sergeant grappling 
 him in such a way as to hinder the effectiveness of his thrusts at 
 the Secretary, and probably thinking that he had accomplished his 
 purpose, he turned his attention toward making his escape. In 
 disentangling himself from the grasp of the two men who now had 
 hold of him, he gave to Major Seward several severe cuts about 
 the head and face, crying all the time, " I am mad ! I am mad ! " 
 Finally, pulling himself loose, he started to make his way to the 
 street. Meeting a Mr. Emrick W. Hansel, another nurse, on the 
 stairs, he made a thrust at him with his knife, inflicting an ugly 
 wound. He now left the house, leaving five of its inmates 
 stabbed, cut, and bleeding behind him. Having reached the 
 street, he deliberately threw his dagger away, mounted the horse 
 which he had hitched in front of the door, and rode off. Thus, 
 for the time being, this inhuman monster passed from sight, hav- 
 ing made good his retreat minus his dagger, hat, and revolver. 
 He was not a moment too soon in withdrawing from the house. 
 The colored porter, as soon as he saw the violence done to 
 Frederick Seward at the head of the stairs, ran down and out into 
 the street with the cry of " murder," and did not stop until he 
 reached General Angur's headquarters, where he reported the 
 occurrence and ran back immediately, accompanied by two or 
 three soldiers. They reached the house just in time to see Payne 
 mount his horse and ride away. He was followed some distance 
 by the porter, who kept nearly up with him for some time, as he 
 rode slowly at first, but he then mended his pace, and was soon 
 out of sight. The soldiers, having no orders and not compre- 
 hending the situation, made no effort to stop him, although the 
 colored boy who gave the alarm, and who preceded them, pointed 
 him out to them as the man who had so ruthlessly broken the 
 quiet of that house and produced such consternation amongst its 
 peaceful inmates. 
 
 Although Payne rode away so leisurely at the start, he put his 
 horse to the top of his speed as soon as he had fairly cleared the
 
 44 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 streets and reached the suburbs of the city. About two hours 
 later, a bay horse, saddled, and blind of an eye, came running 
 up a by-road that led to Camp Barry, about three-fourths of a 
 mile east of the capitol, and was there halted and taken charge of 
 and placed in General Angur's stables. The horse, when found, 
 bore marks of having been ridden at a furious rate. The sweat 
 was streaming from every pore and dripping to the ground. This 
 proved to be the bay horse that Booth had bought from Gardner, 
 the neighbor of Dr. Mudd, in November, 1864, and which he sold 
 to his co-conspirator, Arnold, in January, 1865, according to his 
 own statement made some time before the assassination. 
 
 This was no doubt the horse rode by Payne on that night. The 
 most probable theory is, that being pushed and urged at a furious 
 rate, and being blind of an eye, he stumbled and pitched headlong, 
 throwing, and probably stunning, his rider, after which he regained 
 his footing and made his escape before Payne had sufficiently 
 recovered to get hold of him. The fact of his being a little lame 
 when caught goes to sustain this theory. Thus was the would-be 
 assassin prevented from joining his comrades, Booth and Herold, 
 in their flight, and compelled to skulk and hide in the suburbs of 
 the city for the next two days. He was without arms and hatless, 
 and was compelled to throw away his overcoat, which was after- 
 wards found, on account of the bloodstains on its sleeves. He 
 knew that the alarm would spread rapidly throughout the vicinity, 
 and in his present condition he dared not venture out through the 
 country, so he was compelled to spend the time in hiding and 
 skulking until he was forced from his retreat by hunger. Making 
 a covering for his head out of a sleeve from his under-shirt, which 
 he drew over it like a turban, he shouldered a pick, which he had 
 stolen from the trenches, and at near the hour of midnight on the 
 i /th he entered the city. He went directly to the house of Mrs. 
 Surratt, as the safest place he could find to rest, hide, and refresh 
 himself, and obtain an outfit in which he might make his escape. 
 Here he felt that he could trust the secret of his presence. Un- 
 fortunately for him, as well as for Mrs. Surratt, the government 
 had by this time come into possession of such information as 
 justified it in sending its military police to that house, with 
 orders to arrest its inmates.
 
 ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT. 45 
 
 It had been discovered that the house of Mrs. Surratt had been the 
 headquarters of the conspirators in Washington City. The officer 
 in charge of the police, Major H. W. Smith, had reached the 
 house but a short time before Payne arrived. Payne came with 
 his turban on his head, and the pick on his shoulder, and rang the 
 door-bell. Major Smith responded to the bell, and asked him to 
 come in. Seeing the officer, he said he believed he was mistaken 
 in the house. Being asked whose house he sought, he replied, 
 " Mrs. Surratt's." The officer replied, " This is the place," and 
 drawing his revolver on him, ordered him to come in. Payne 
 entered, and the officer closed the door. He then inquired who 
 he was, and what he wanted. To these questions he replied that 
 he was a poor man, and a laborer, and that Mrs. Surratt had sent 
 for him to dig a drain for her. On being asked what brought 
 him there at that time of night, he replied that he " merely called 
 to see what time Mrs. Surratt wanted him to go to work in the 
 morning." The officer saw that his hands bore no marks of labor, 
 and at once suspected he had caged one of the conspirators. He 
 placed him under arrest and took him along with the others in the 
 house, to General Angur's head-quarters, where he was held for 
 identification. William H. Bell, the colored boy who was second 
 waiter at Mr. Seward's, being sent for, at once unhesitatingly 
 identified him as the man who had produced such consternation 
 in the house of Mr. Seward, on the night of the I4th, by his 
 determined efforts to take the Secretary's life. Lewis Payne, 
 having been thus captured and identified, and Mrs. Mary E. 
 Surratt, were the first amongst the conspirators to be held for 
 trial. 
 
 After the attack at Secretary Seward's, Dr. Verdi and two or 
 three other surgeons were at once called to examine and treat the 
 Secretary and the other victims of Payne's dagger. The. house in 
 which the onslaught was made had the appearance of a charnal 
 house or slaughter-pen. The Secretary was found to have received 
 three or four severe cuts about the face and neck, which were only 
 made dangerous by the loss of blood they had occasioned and the 
 weak condition of the patient. 
 
 The Secretary made a slow but good recovery. Of the other
 
 46 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 four wounded men, the wounds of Mr. Frederick Seward proved the 
 most serious, as his skull had been fractured and depressed, so as 
 to render him unconscious, from which condition he was only 
 recalled by a surgical operation. 
 
 All finally recovered. Here again we are called to notice the 
 providences in the case, leading to the capture of Payne, and to 
 the bringing on his head the just reward of his deeds.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE NEWS COMMUNICATED TO THE WORLD, AND ITS EFFECT. 
 
 ON the morning of the I5th of April, 1865, the telegraph wires 
 carried to every part of the United States that was in communi- 
 cation with Washington, and to the rest of the civilized world, the 
 astounding intelligence that Abraham Lincoln, President of the 
 United States, had been assassinated on the previous night by 
 John Wilkes Booth, at Ford's Theatre in Washington City ; that at 
 the same hour a most savage attempt had been made to assassinate 
 the Secretary of State, Hon. William H. Seward, and that he was 
 lying in a most critical and dangerous condition from the wounds 
 which he had received, and would probably die. Never, perhaps, 
 in the history of the race were so many hearts bleeding, and so 
 many eyes suffused with tears at one time, as on that sorrowful 
 day. The nation was rilled with grief, mingled with indignation 
 and horror at the deed. The land was literally draped in mourn- 
 ing. Every city, and every town and village, displayed the sable 
 habiliments of grief. The response came back to our people, in 
 kind, from every civilized people on earth. 
 
 The writer was at the time a member of Grant's victorious 
 army, and had large opportunities for witnessing the effects pro- 
 duced by the sad intelligence on the soldiery of our country. 
 From the highest officers down to the rank and file of the army, 
 sorrow and grief were depicted on every countenance. From 
 Appomattox to Richmond the victorious army that had been 
 filled with joyful and hopeful anticipations over its successes, and 
 the prospect of the speedy dawn of peace, and of returning to 
 their homes and friends and to the pursuits of peaceful life, after 
 four years of arduous military service, was at once plunged into 
 the deepest sadness and gloom. Strong men wept. It was as 
 
 47
 
 48 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 though every soldier had lost his dearest friend. There was 
 always a day of sadness in the army after every great battle, even 
 in the triumphs of victory, at the thought of the many brave 
 comrades who had given up their lives for their country, and 
 would never again be seen in the ranks, who were even then 
 being gathered up from the field and carefully laid away in silence 
 to await the resurrection morn ; and of the others, who with loss 
 of limbs and fearful wounds, were receiving the care of the 
 surgeons and nurses in the hospitals improvised for the occasion ; 
 but never before had such a pall of grief been thrown over the 
 entire army. 
 
 The depth of sorrow into which the nation was plunged by the 
 news of his assassination revealed, as nothing else could have 
 done, the place Abraham Lincoln held in the confidence and 
 affections of the loyal people of the land. The first shock of the 
 sad intelligence was almost paralytic. The people even the 
 army for the moment stood dazed and bewildered. What was 
 the meaning of all this? Was the war to be prolonged? Were 
 we now to be called upon to turn our victorious arms upon the 
 enemy in the rear, of whose existence we had all the time been 
 conscious? Such were the questions that first suggested them- 
 selves. If so, the army was then in a state of mind to have made 
 a short work of it. The victory over our armed foe in front, who 
 had so bravely met us, and often with success, on many a hotly- 
 contested field, would never have been yielded to the disloyal 
 cowards who, through all of these years of the war, from their safe 
 retreats and hiding-places, threw every obstacle they could in the 
 way of our now martyred President, and who had planned and 
 accomplished his taking off. 
 
 The extent of the conspiracy had not as yet been revealed ; but 
 enough was known to the government to evince the fact that this 
 was an act of deep political significance, having behind it a very 
 different class of men from the dissolute and depraved assassins 
 who were executing their behests, and not merely done for the 
 gratification of personal and political revenge. It was obvious 
 that the occasion called for the most vigorous and decided 
 measures on the part of the government to meet and overcome
 
 THE NEWS COMMUNICATED TO THE WORLD. 49 
 
 the strategy of assassinations just now entered upon. It very 
 soon became known to the authorities that the plot had been but 
 very partially executed, and that the purpose of the conspirators 
 was to subvert the constitution by depriving the nation of its 
 executive head, and leaving no constitutional way of electing a 
 new President, and at the same time to deprive the armies in the 
 field of a lawful commander. To accomplish this, the President, 
 Vice-President, Secretary of State, and General Grant were all to 
 have been assassinated. The conspirators in Canada and also the 
 rebel president, when they heard that only President Lincoln had 
 been killed, could not conceal their disappointment, and virtually 
 confessed that their deep-laid scheme had proven a failure. The 
 former still adhered to their purpose, and in their rage declared, 
 " We are not done with them yet." We hardly dare to venture 
 upon the consideration of what would have been the result had 
 they completed the work they had planned. We have reason for 
 profound thankfulness to that God who has thus far so wisely and 
 graciously watched over our national progress, that he did not 
 permit its accomplishment. But we, who were actors on the 
 stage at that time, knowing how the principal actors in our 
 national affairs, both civil and military, had been schooled in self- 
 sacrificing, patriotic devotion to the institutions of our fathers, and 
 their unfaltering purpose to transmit them unimpaired to their 
 children and children's children for a perpetual inheritance, can 
 but feel assured that even in the dire extremity now under consid- 
 eration they would have proven true to their trust, and would 
 have found a way to restore all of the machinery of government 
 provided for in the Constitution. The people are above the 
 Constitution even as the maker is above the thing made. 
 
 The rebel armies had been so completely overcome that they 
 could no longer have formed even a nucleus around which the 
 traitors in the North could have organized an opposition that could 
 have been regarded with other than feelings of contempt by our 
 victorious hosts. The time had passed ; the opportunity was gone. 
 No wonder the conspirators in Canada gnashed their teeth with 
 rage and disappointment because " the boys had not been allowed 
 to act when they wanted to." They had amongst their many
 
 50 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 schemes concocted during the summer of 1864, such as making 
 raids, liberating rebel prisoners of war held in Northern prisons, 
 burning cities, spreading pestilence, and poisoning reservoirs, been 
 led also to consider this scheme of assassinations. All of these 
 things were to be done in aid of the rebellion. 
 
 As their cause became desperate on account of the continued 
 success of our arms, so did they become desperate in planning to 
 retrieve. As early as January, 1865, they received a communica- 
 tion from Jefferson Davis suggesting these things and urging them 
 to stop at nothing, however desperate, and plainly intimating that 
 Lincoln ought not to be allowed to live ; but it was not until the latter 
 part of March, 1865, that they were prepared to present to him a 
 definitely-prepared plan for the accomplishment of their purposes 
 that he could accept and sanction. They had thus been long 
 delayed, and now they were compelled to realize that their work 
 was a failure. No wonder that they all, from Jefferson Davis down, 
 felt and expressed grievous disappointment. It reminds us of 
 Milton's description of the malignant schemes, failures, disappoint- 
 ments, and rage of the Prince of Devils in his contests with the 
 Almighty.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 UNRAVELLING THE PLOT. PURSUIT AND CAPTURE OF BOOTH 
 AND HEROLD. DEATH OF BOOTH. 
 
 THE most active measures were at onde resorted to by the 
 government to discover the conspirators, and to capture all who 
 could be found of those engaged in it. The civil and military 
 police, as also those engaged in the secret service of the govern- 
 ment, were at once set to work. It was soon learned that Booth 
 and a co-conspirator, which proved to be Herold, had passed over 
 the navy-yard bridge, on horseback, very shortly after the hour 
 at which the fatal shot had been fired, and were fleeing toward 
 Surrattsville and Bryantown in Maryland. They had been allowed 
 to pass by the sentinel at the bridge, having represented them- 
 selves as citizens on their way to their homes. Booth was first at 
 the bridge, and gave his true name to the sentinel, saying that he 
 lived close to Beautown. Five minutes later Herold came and 
 gave his name as Smith, saying that he lived at White Plains and 
 was on his way home. Having gotten safely on the road, they 
 directly joined company, and pushed on rapidly, arriving at 
 Surrattsville about midnight. 
 
 Stopping at Lloyd's tavern in Surrattsville, Herold dismounted 
 and went into the house, saying to Lloyd, " For God's sake, make 
 haste and get those things ! " Lloyd, understanding what he 
 wanted from the notification given him by Mrs. Surratt on the 
 evening previous, without making any reply, went and got the 
 carbines, which he had placed in his bedroom that they might be 
 handy, and brought them to Herold, together with the ammunition 
 and field-glass that had been deposited with him, and the two 
 bottles of whiskey that Booth had ordered through Mrs. Surratt 
 the evening before. Herold carried out to Booth one of the bottles 
 
 51
 
 52 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 of whiskey, drinking from his own bottle in the house before going 
 out. Booth declined taking his carbine, saying his leg was broken 
 and he could not carry it. As they were about leaving, Booth 
 said to Lloyd, " I will tell you some news if you want to hear it " ; 
 and then went on to say, " I am pretty certain that we have assas- 
 sinated the President and Secretary Seward." The moon was 
 now up and shining brightly, and the two confessed criminals 
 resumed their flight. The next heard of them was at the house 
 of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, near Bryantown, in Maryland, and about 
 thirty miles from Washington, where they arrived at about four 
 o'clock on the morning of the I5th, having travelled at the rate of 
 six miles per hour. 
 
 Booth's leg had been broken by a fracture of the fibula, or 
 small bone of the leg, when he fell on the stage on leaping from 
 the President's box, and by this time had become very painful. 
 He greatly needed the support of a splint, and quiet as well. He 
 was in a position, however, to get neither ; for although he had 
 reached the house of a co-conspirator, who was a country doctor, 
 and well disposed to render him all the aid he could, he appears 
 to have made a very bungling out, dressing the broken limb 
 with some pasteboard and a bandage that .gave but a very imper- 
 fect support. As to the rest he required, that was impossible, 
 for although Mudd placed him in an upstairs room and kept him 
 until the afternoon, they were admonished by seeing a squad of 
 soldiers under Lieutenant Dana passing down past Mudd's place, 
 which was a quarter of a mile off the road to Bryantown, that there 
 was no rest for the wicked ; and as quickly as it could be done 
 after the soldiers passed, Mudd got rid of his dangerous charge 
 by sending them by an unfrequented route to the house of his friend 
 and neighbor, Samuel Cox, about six miles nearer to the Poto- 
 mac. Booth was on no new ground, neither amongst strangers 
 either to his person or to his wicked purpose. He had spent a 
 good deal of his time during the previous fall in that part of 
 Maryland, preparing a way for his escape after accomplishing his 
 purpose. His way had seemed clear to him in advance ; his 
 route had been selected ; his friendly acquaintanceships secured. 
 But, alas ! the broken leg. Under the guise of looking at the
 
 MAP OF BOOTH'S ROUTE.
 
 UNRAVELLING THE PLOT. 53 
 
 country with a desire to purchase lands, he had perfected all his 
 arrangements, and had expected to pass swiftly over his route, 
 accompanied by Atzerodt (whose home was in this neighbor- 
 hood, and who knew all about the contraband trade with the 
 rebel capital, the underground mail route between Richmond and 
 Washington, and all of the people engaged in these operations, 
 and also the place and facilities for crossing the Potomac), and 
 also by Payne and Herold. He had purposed to be safe ( on the 
 soil of the Old Dominion e'er this time. Instead of realizing all 
 this, he found himself a cripple, scarcely able to travel, and closely 
 pursued by those whom he knew to be on his trail, with no other 
 companion than his 'devoted but inefficient friend, Herold; and 
 thus he was compelled to realize that 
 
 "The best laid schemes o' mice and men 
 
 Gang aft aglee; 
 
 And lea' us nought but grief and pain 
 For promised joy." 
 
 Mudd had done all he could to relieve him, but dare not try to 
 conceal and keep him. He could only forward him to the next 
 stage of his journey and to a safe place of concealment. This he 
 faithfully did. Cox lived near Port Tobacco, the home of 
 Atzerodt ; and as his was too public a place to afford safety to the 
 fugitives, he turned them over to his neighbor, Thomas Jones, a 
 contraband trader between Maryland and Richmond, who, in the 
 midst of a constant scouring of the country by pursuing parties, 
 kept his charge concealed in the woods near his house, supplying 
 them with food and doing everything he could for their comfort, 
 waiting and watching constantly to find an opportunity to get 
 them across the Potomac. They were hunted so closely that they 
 could hear the neighing of the horses of the troopers, and fearing 
 they might be betrayed by their horses answering the calls, 
 Herold led them into a swamp near where they lay concealed in 
 the pines and shot them. 
 
 The river was being continually patroled by gun-boats, and the 
 task of getting his wards across proved both difficult and 
 dangerous to Jones. The proclamation of the Secretary of War, 
 offering one hundred thousand dollars for the capture of Booth,
 
 54 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 and warning all persons from aiding the fugitives in any way in 
 making their escape, had been published broadcast, yet Jones was 
 true to his trust. Neither the offered rewards nor the warnings 
 of the proclamation had any effect on him ; but for a whole week 
 he kept them secreted in the pines on his premises, where Booth 
 lay night and day wrapped in a pair of blankets that had most 
 likely been furnished him by Dr. Mudd. Finally, being furnished 
 by Jones with a boat, they took their own risks and effected a 
 crossing; but they were seen by a colored man, upon whose 
 report General Baker got on their track and finally effected their 
 capture. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Booth had selected this as the route 
 for his escape months before, and that all of his visits to this part 
 of Maryland had been made with reference to this plan. Being at 
 length across the Potomac, even though under such unfavorable 
 auspices, Booth no doubt drew a free and exultant breath at 
 having been permitted to set his foot at last on the soil of the 
 Old Dominion. He felt that he was now amongst friends who 
 would aid him in his progress, or help him by concealment, as 
 the case might require ; and his friend Jones no doubt breathed 
 with a freedom he had not known for some days at finding himself 
 cut loose from his dangerous charge. Booth was greatly disap- 
 pointed at the cold reception given him by the people on whom 
 he had counted so much after crossing into Virginia. He had 
 expected to be lionized and honored as the hero of the age ; but 
 instead of that he received a comparatively cold reception that 
 stung his vanity like the poison of an asp. ' 
 
 It is true the people showed no disposition to betray him ; but, 
 at the same time, they manifested a disposition to enter into no 
 compromising friendship with him, or in any way to assume any 
 responsibility in his behalf by helping him to escape. How much 
 of this was due to abhorrence of his crime, and how much to a 
 dread of consequences, can only be a matter of conjecture. The 
 fact that they were willing to let him escape, if he could, would 
 throw the preponderance on the latter as the governing motive of 
 their conduct. Sad, indeed, was Booth's condition at this time. 
 More than a week had elapsed since he had perpetrated his great
 
 DAVID E. HEROLD.
 
 UNRAVELLING THE PLOT. 55 
 
 crime and commenced his guilty flight ; and now he found him- 
 self on foot, so lame as scarcely to be able to walk a step, even 
 with the help of a crutch, and scarcely more than fifty miles 
 from his starting point. His companion in crime, Herold, was 
 now the only human being on whose friendship and fidelity he 
 could certainly rely. A reward of one hundred and seventy-five 
 thousand dollars offered for his capture, the brand of Cain upon 
 him, his fractured bone cutting into the flesh at every movement 
 of his limb, a constant admonition of a frowning Providence, 
 it is no wonder that the diurnal entries in his book begin to bear 
 evidence of a remorse that can never be appeased. We can .but 
 pity his deplorable condition, for he was a fellow-man ; but 
 then he was at the same time a monster in crime, directed by 
 hatred of a fellow-man without just cause, and of wickedness that 
 had brought upon him the blood of one of the greatest and best 
 of men, not only of his own age and country, but of all the ages of 
 the world. When we contemplate his crime, our sympathies refuse 
 to go with him, and our sense of justice finds a grateful feeling of 
 relief in the evidence now clearly pointing to the fact that he is 
 a doomed man. 
 
 By the aid of his blind follower, Herold, he is able to maintain 
 his concealment, and after a wretched fashion to resume his flight 
 in an old wagon drawn by two miserable horses and driven by a 
 negro. In this state he reaches Port Conway, on the Rappahannock, 
 in King George County, Virginia. Here his driver refuses to take 
 him any further. It is just at this juncture and in this dilemma 
 that they are met by three confederate soldiers, Major Ruggles, 
 Lieutenant Bainbridge, and Captain William Jett, the latter of 
 Moseby's command. 
 
 Herold, thinking they were recruiting for the rebel service, was 
 quick to see in them a means of assistance in getting South, and 
 under the protection of the stars and bars, and so revealed their 
 identity, appealing to them for assistance. A little later, Booth, 
 getting out of the wretched conveyance, came forward, and to assure 
 himself of their disposition toward him, accosted them with the in- 
 terrogatory, "I suppose you have been told who we are?" then, 
 throwing himself back on his crutch, and straightening himself up,
 
 56 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 with pistol cocked and drawn, he said, " Yes, I am Wilkes Booth, 
 the slayer of Abraham Lincoln, and I am worth just one hundred 
 and seventy-five thousand dollars to the man that captures me." 
 His attitude and speech was that of a man at bay, under the power 
 of a desperate purpose never to be taken alive. These three offi- 
 cers of the confederate army (for they were such at this time, not 
 having been paroled), whilst mildly protesting that they did not 
 sanction his acts as an assassin, assured him that they did not want 
 any blood money, and promised to render him all the assistance 
 in their power in making his escape, a promise which they faith- 
 fully kept. Major Ruggles dismounted and placed Booth on his 
 horse, when the whole party crossed over the Rappahannock, from 
 Port Conway, in King George, to Port Royal, in Caroline County, 
 Virginia, and after an ineffectual effort to find quarters for Booth 
 in the town, they took him three miles on the road to Bowling 
 Green, the county seat of the latter county, where they succeeded 
 in getting a man by the name of Garrett to take him in, with the 
 understanding that he would do all he could for his comfort and 
 safety. Garrett took Booth and Herold in with a full knowledge 
 of all the facts in the case, and with some manifest reluctance from 
 a knowledge of the danger he would thus incur. 
 
 Bainbridge and Herold went on to Bowling Green, whilst Ruggles 
 and Jett remained over night in the woods near the house, Booth 
 being hid away on the premises and cared for. On the following 
 day Captain Jett went to Bowling Green on a visit, prompted by 
 the tender passion, where he intended to remain a few days ; and 
 Lieutenant Bainbridge returned to the Garrett farm, where he 
 rejoined Major Ruggles. The two started for Port Conway, but 
 before getting there, learned that the town was full of Yankee 
 cavalry, when they lost no time in returning to Garrett's, and gave 
 warning to Booth, advising him to lose no time in fleeing to a 
 piece of woods, which they pointed out to him, and then turned 
 to look out for their own safety. The cavalry of which they got 
 this notice was a squad detailed from the Sixteenth New York 
 Regiment, commanded by Lieutenant Dougherty, which had been 
 ordered to report to General L. C. Baker of the Secret Service 
 Department, and by him placed in charge of E. J. Conger and 
 L. B. Baker, officers belonging to his detective force.
 
 I'XRAVELLING THE PLOT. 57 
 
 Arriving at Port Conway on the afternoon of the day subsequent 
 to the crossing of the parties above referred to, and finding the wife 
 of the ferry keeper at the ferry-house sitting and conversing with 
 another women, Colonel Conger exhibited to them a photograph 
 of Booth, and informed them that that was the man they wanted. 
 It at once became apparent to him, from the manner and actions 
 of the woman, that Booth was not far off. The ferryman, a man 
 by the name of Rollins, was sent for, and being influenced no doubt 
 by fear of compromising himself he became very communicative. 
 He told them all about the party that had crossed the day before, 
 one of whom, Captain Jett, he knew welt ; and knowing that Jett 
 had been paying attention to a Miss Goldman, the daughter of a 
 Bowling Green hotel keeper, he suggested that he would most 
 probably be found there. Colonel Conger pushed on with his 
 squad of cavalry, commanded by Captain, then Lieutenant, E. P. 
 Dougherty, to Bowling Green, passing the Garrett farm after 
 dark. 
 
 Arriving at Goldman's Hotel, he inquired of Mrs. Goldman as 
 to the men that were in the house. She answered him that her 
 wounded son was in a room upstairs, and that he was all the 
 man there was there. Colonel Conger then required her to lead 
 the way upstairs, telling her at the same time that if his men 
 were fired on he would burn the building and carry its inmates 
 to Washington as prisoners. As he entered the room which she 
 showed him, up one flight of stairs, Captain Jett jumped out of 
 bed half-dressed, and admitted his identity. Colonel Conger then 
 informed him that he was cognizant of his movements for the last 
 two days, and proceeded to read to him the proclamation of the 
 Secretary of War, telling him when he had done reading it that 
 if he did not tell him the truth he would hang him ; but that if he 
 truly gave him the information that he sought he would protect 
 him. Jett was greatly excited, and told him that he had left 
 Booth at the Garrett Farm, three miles from Port Royal. The 
 Colonel then had Jett's horse taken from the stable, making Jett 
 his unwilling guide to the place of Booth's concealment. 
 
 Arriving at Garrett's, the cavalry was so disposed of as to 
 prevent any one from escaping, and after having extorted, by
 
 58 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 threats, the information that Booth and Herold were concealed in 
 the barn, it was at once surrounded. They were ordered to come 
 out and surrender themselves, which Booth refused to do. After 
 a considerable parley, Herold came to the door and gave himself 
 up. He was followed by the maledictions of Booth, who accused 
 him of cowardly unfaithfulness in thus deserting him. Booth still 
 refusing to surrender, a wisp of hay was fired and thrown in on 
 the hay in the barn. From this start the barn was soon lighted 
 up with the flames of the burning hay. Booth was known to . be 
 armed and desperate, and as the burning hay began to illuminate 
 the barn he was seen, carbine in hand, peering through the cracks, 
 and trying to get an aim. He had before offered to fight the 
 crowd for a chance of his life if the Colonel would but withdraw 
 his men one hundred yards. Being answered that they had come 
 to capture him, not to fight, he was preparing to sell his life 
 as dearly as possible. At this moment, Sergeant Boston Corbett, 
 of the Sixteenth New York Cavalry, fired at Booth through a 
 crack in the barn, upon his own responsibility, and struck him on 
 the back part of his head, very nearly in the same part where his 
 own ball had struck the President, only a little lower down, and 
 passing obliquely through the base of the brain and upper part of 
 the spinal cord ; it produced instantly almost complete paralysis 
 of every muscle in his body below the seat of the wound, the 
 nerves of organic life only sufficing to keep up a very difficult and 
 imperfect respiration, and a feeble action of the heart for a few 
 hours, when, with the coming of the morning of the 26th of April, 
 1865, twelve days after the commission of his crime and com- 
 mencement of his flight, the malefactor expired. He was per- 
 fectly clear in his mind, but could not swallow, and was scarcely 
 able to articulate so as to be understood, although he seemed 
 anxious to talk. He requested the officer, who was waiting over 
 him and trying to minister to him, to tell his mother that he died 
 for his country. Thus was avenged, not the loyal North alone, 
 but the cause of justice, the cause of freedom, the cause of 
 humanity. Amongst the articles found on his person the most 
 important as bearing on the conspiracy in which he was engaged 
 was a bill of exchange, as follows :
 
 UNRAVELLING THE PLOT. 59 
 
 THE ONTARIO BANK, 
 No. 1492. MONTREAL BRANCH. 
 
 Stamp. Exchange for 61 iss. tod. 
 
 MONTREAL, 27th October, 1864. 
 
 Sixty days after sight of this first exchange (second and third of same tenor and 
 date unpaid) pay to the order of J. Wilkes Booth sixty-one pounds, twelve shillings, 
 and ten pence sterling. Value received and charge to account of this office. 
 To Messrs. GLYNN, MILLS & Co., London. 
 
 [Signed] H. STANUS, Manager. 
 
 The body was brought to Washington and identified fully. It 
 was buried, for the time secretly, under the floor of the old 
 Capitol Prison, but afterwards was given up to his friends. 
 
 Major Ruggles, in his account of his connection with Booth in his 
 flight, gives it as his opinion that he was not shot, as claimed, by 
 Sergeant Corbett, but that seeing escape hopeless, and knowing 
 death to be his fate, he took his own life, holding his pistol to the 
 back of his head ; and in support of this opinion refers to the fact 
 that one chamber of his revolver was found to be empty. He also 
 advances the opinion that had the war still been going on, and 
 Booth had made his escape into the confederate lines, the rebel 
 government would have arrested him and delivered him up to the 
 United States authorities. In this opinion he takes a charitable 
 view of the virtue and moral integrity of the Richmond govern- 
 ment which I shall hereafter show is not warranted by the facts 
 and evidence in the case. In this opinion he is also giving that 
 government credit for a degree of virtue and integrity in striking 
 contrast with the conduct of himself and his companions, who 
 hurriedly entered into a friendly compact with the assassins, know- 
 ing them to be such, pledging fidelity and assistance to the full 
 extent of their ability under the circumstances in which they were 
 placed, thus morally and legally making themselves accomplices 
 after the fact. 1 
 
 1 The evidence before the Commission left Booth and Herold, from the time they left 
 Dr. Mudd's until they arrived at Port Conway, unaccounted for. I am indebted to 
 articles in the Century Magazine, by George A. Townsend, Major Ruggles, and 
 Lieutenant Bainbridge, for the ability to fill up this interval, and to General Baker's 
 "History of the Secret Service," for facts connected with the capture, death, and 
 burial of Booth. AUTHOR.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 
 Arrest of Spangler, O'Laughlin, Atzerodt, Mudd, and Arnold. 
 
 NOT only was the government bending every energy to overtake 
 and capture Booth and Herold, but also to find out who were their 
 co-conspirators. It undertook a systematic investigation of Booth's 
 haunts, associations, habits, and employment during the recent past. 
 Hotel registers were overhauled, liverymen interviewed, and each 
 clue followed up, so that in a short time enough was known to 
 lead to the arrest of Edward Spangler, Michael O'Laughlin, 
 George A. Atzerodt, Samuel Arnold, and Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, 
 in addition to those heretofore spoken of as having been arrested. 
 By this time the evidence in possession of the government made it 
 clear that what had occurred was but a partial accomplishment 
 of a great conspiracy, which had its origin with the agents of the 
 rebel government in Canada; and that its execution had been 
 entrusted to John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt, as leaders, 
 and to such assistants as they should select and employ. 
 
 It was soon discovered that Booth's intimate associates, with 
 whom he held private confidential intercourse, were John H. 
 Surratt, and his mother, Mary E. Surratt, Lewis Payne, George 
 A. Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, David E. Herold, Samuel 
 Arnold, and Michael O'Laughlin ; and that the house of Mrs. 
 Surratt was the headquarters of the conspirators in Washington. 
 Arnold and O'Laughlin were intimate personal friends and asso- 
 ciates of Booth at his home in Baltimore. Booth, Payne, and 
 Atzerodt were frequent callers at the house of Mrs. Surratt, where 
 they were always made welcome ; their business was always of a 
 private, confidential nature, and was with John Surratt when he 
 60
 
 EDWARD SPANGLER
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 6 1 
 
 was at home, but in his absence was with Mrs. Surratt herself. 
 Booth had every privilege granted to him in that house, his 
 requests for a private conference being always responded to by 
 John or his mother. To Booth it seemed to be a matter of 
 indifference which of the two it was. In tracing his movements 
 the last few months preceeding the assassination, it soon became 
 evident that he was acting under the impulse of a purpose that 
 had entire possession of his mind. Having undertaken to secure 
 the accomplishment of the assassinations planned by Davis and 
 his Canada Cabinet, in the latter part of October, 1864, he was 
 constantly employed in making his preparations for the fulfillment 
 of his contract, and gave no time or thought, apparently, to any- 
 thing else. He entirely abandoned his profession, that of an 
 actor, and lost all interest in the stage. He no longer consorted 
 with those of his profession to any extent, except as it might be 
 in preparation for the work to which he had devoted his life, 
 and accepted, instead, the fellowship of such low-browed scoun- 
 drels as Payne and Atzerodt as better suited to his purpose. 
 They became mere tools in his hands, sympathizing with him 
 fully in his intense disloyalty, but being actuated at the same 
 time by a mercenary motive, the evidence justifying the con- 
 clusion that they had a promise of a large pecuniary reward. 
 He spent a great deal of time with these men, studying their 
 characters, and schooling them in the parts they were to act. 
 They were all known to the liverymen of the city, of whom 
 they very frequently obtained horses to ride about the suburbs 
 and study the roads, that they might be thoroughly familiar with 
 the locality when the time should come for them to make their 
 escape. They were all known, also, to go constantly armed with 
 revolvers and bowie-knives by those who had opportunities of see- 
 ing them together in their private intercourse. They boarded at 
 different hotels, and frequently changed their boarding-places, but 
 were frequent visitors of each other at whatever places they might 
 be stopping, and their intercourse was always observed to be that 
 of privacy ; and so it became a just cause for suspicion to have 
 been an intimate companion of Booth, and finally led to the arrest 
 of them all.
 
 62 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 With regard to the relations existing between Booth and John 
 H. Surratt, and his mother, Mary E. Surratt, the evidence showed 
 that they would always retire to an upstairs room whenever a 
 lengthy conference was desired ; but that they frequently held 
 short private conferences in the parlor, when it could be done 
 without danger of interruption. Booth's right to thus come into 
 the house and demand these private interviews was never ques- 
 tioned, but granted with the alacrity due to a common purpose 
 that required it. 
 
 Foundation for the Arrest of Mrs. Surratt. 
 
 The agents of the government, in pursuing their investiga- 
 tions, obtained evidence that Mrs. Surratt's house had been the 
 meeting-place or headquarters of the conspirators, and that she 
 was in private, confidential intercourse with Booth. One of the 
 principal witnesses against her was Louis J. Wiechmann, who had 
 been for several months a boarder in her house, and whose friendly 
 relations with the family were due to the fact that he had been a 
 fellow-student with John H. Surratt at St. Charles College, in 
 Maryland, and to the further fact that they were co-religionists. 
 Wiechmann had been, during all this time that he had been a 
 boarder at Mrs. Surratt's, employed as a clerk in the office of 
 General Hoffman, Commissary General of Prisoners ; and from 
 him the facts above alleged were learned. Wiechmann also stated 
 that Mrs. Surratt sent him to Booth with a message that she 
 wanted to see him on private business, and that Booth replied 
 that he would come that evening or as soon as he could, and that 
 he did come that evening. 
 
 On the Tuesday previous to the assassination, Mrs. Surratt 
 requested Wiechmann to drive her down to Surrattsville, saying 
 that she wanted to see a Mr. Nothey who owed her some money. 
 Upon his consenting to do so, she sent him to the National Hotel 
 to see Booth, and request the use of his horse and buggy for 
 the occasion. Booth said he had sold his horse and buggy, but 
 handed to Wiechmann ten dollars with which to procure one. 
 Wiechmann got a conveyance and drove Mrs. Surratt to Surratts- 
 ville and back. As they were on their way down, they met
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 63 
 
 Lloyd, to whom Mrs. Surratt had rented her farm and tavern at 
 Surrattsville. Mrs. Surratt requested Wiechmann to stop ; and 
 Lloyd, stopping at the same time, got out of his buggy and came 
 close to Mrs. Surratt, who conversed with him in so low a tone 
 that Wiechmann did not hear what was said, but Lloyd testified 
 before the Commission that she told him to "have those shoot- 
 ing-irons where they would be convenient, as they would be 
 wanted before long." The "shooting-irons" referred to were two 
 carbines, which, with ammunition, a monkey-wrench, and a piece 
 of rope, had been left with Lloyd by John H. Surratt, Herold, and 
 Atzerodt about three weeks before, with the request that he should 
 keep them hid, Surratt at the same time showing him a safe 
 place to secrete them. On the Friday of the assassination, Mrs. 
 Surratt requested Wiechmann to drive her down to Surrattsville, 
 alleging that she was going to see Mr. Nothey again on the same 
 business as before. She gave Wiechmann money to procure a con- 
 veyance and he drove her down. Booth was with her in the parlor 
 when he returned with the conveyance, and when Mrs. Surratt was 
 about getting into the buggy, she requested Wiechmann to wait until 
 she went and got Mr. Booth's things. She went back into the 
 parlor and returned with a field-glass, which she delivered to Lloyd. 
 They reached Surrattsville about four o'clock. Mrs. Surratt then 
 had Wiechmann sit down and write a note to Mr. Nothey at her 
 dictation, which she sent to him by a Mr. Bennett Gwin. Lloyd 
 had gone to Marlboro to court, and Mrs. Surratt awaited his return 
 which was not until about half-past six oclock. When Lloyd 
 returned, he drove around into the back yard to unload some 
 fish and oysters which he had purchased, and Mrs. Surratt, who 
 had been waiting and watching for his return, seized this oppor- 
 tunity to see him privately, when she told him, as Lloyd testified 
 before the Commission, to have the carbines ready, as they would 
 be called for that night, and also two bottles of whiskey. Then 
 going with him into the house, she gave him the field-glass. 
 
 She was now ready to return, and expressed anxiety to Wiech- 
 mann to reach home before nine o'clock, saying that she had an 
 engagement for that hour. She reached her home just before nine, 
 and a few moments later Wiechmann, from his place at the table
 
 64 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 in the dining-room below, heard the door-bell ring, and some 
 one enter the parlor. The interview was very short just long 
 enough for Mrs. Surratt to say that all was right when 
 Wiechmann heard retreating footsteps, but did not know who 
 the visitor was. In view, however, of all the foregoing, we can- 
 not resist the conclusion that Booth was the person, and that 
 this was their last interview. Mrs. Surratt was able to produce 
 the letter of Mr. Calvert which she claimed required her to go to 
 Surrattsville that day to see Mr. Nothey, but she had no appoint- 
 ment to meet him there, did not see him, and could just as well 
 have written to him from her home in Washington. This excuse 
 for her visit was a mere fabrication. Her real business was with 
 Lloyd, and she was not ready to return until after she had an 
 interview with him, and delivered her message from Booth, and 
 the field-glass which he had given her. It is evident that her 
 show of private business was gotten up as a cover to her real 
 errand. 
 
 Again, Payne had visited the Surratt house on several occasions. 
 The first time he came he called for John H. Surratt, and on being 
 told by Wiechmann that John was not at home, he requested to 
 see Mrs. Surratt. He passed this time under the alias of Wood, 
 and was received by Mrs. Surratt, and kept over night, when he 
 departed for Baltimore. About three weeks later, say about the 
 2Oth of March (as his first visit was about the 1st of March), he 
 made his second visit, passing under the name of Payne, and 
 remained three days. It was during this visit that the episode 
 already referred to as having in all probability been an attempt to 
 murder the President on his visit to the Soldier's Home, occurred, 
 and from which Surratt, Booth, and Payne returned under such 
 excitement and evident disappointment. 
 
 To such members of the family as had not been initiated into the 
 plot, this man of many aliases Wood, Payne, and Powell 
 passed as a Baptist preacher. He said that he had taken the oath 
 whilst in Baltimore, and intended henceforth to be a good, loyal 
 man. When this man came to the house of Mrs. Surratt on the 
 night of the i/th of April, as heretofore related, and was placed 
 under arrest, Mrs. Surratt, who had also upon a knowledge of the
 
 LEWIS PAYNE.
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 65 
 
 facts just recited been arrested a few minutes before, when she was 
 called into the hall and confronted with Payne, having heard his 
 story as to why he had come and what he had come for, holding 
 up her hands exclaimed, " Before God, I do not know this man, 
 and never saw him before." He had been a guest at her table 
 for three days only a few days previous to this, and was a man of 
 such a marked personality that having seen him once it would 
 have been impossible to have failed to recognize him on seeing 
 him again, even though he might have been partially disguised. 
 With a woman's intuitive perception, she saw the compromising 
 effect that his visit at that time of night, and under such circum- 
 stances, was calculated to have on her own case, and so felt the 
 necessity of this solemn disavowal of any knowledge of him. 
 Before the government felt justified in arresting this woman, only, 
 indeed, two or three hours after the assassination, it being known 
 that Booth was the assassin, and that he and John H. Surratt: 
 were intimate friends, the detectives went to the house of Mrs. 
 Surratt to see whom they could find there. When they rang the 
 bell Wiechmann, who occupied an upstairs room, opened the 
 window and inquired what they wanted. Upon their demanding 
 admittance, stating that they had been sent to that house to see 
 whom they could find in it, Wiechmann went and rapped at Mrs. 
 Surratt's door, informing her who it was that demanded admit- 
 tance, and asking her if he should let them in, when she replied, 
 " Yes, let them in ; I have been expecting them." Now, why 
 should Mrs. Surratt at that hour, about three o'clock on the 
 morning of the I5th, and only three or four hours after the 
 assassination, have been expecting a visit from the detectives? A 
 guilty conscience is its own accuser. 
 
 As Wiechmann and Lloyd were the principal witnesses against 
 Mrs. Surratt, and their evidence so conclusively established her 
 guilt, her counsel made an effort to discredit their testimony, but 
 utterly failed to do so-. Wiechmann was a young man who estab- 
 lished a good character for veracity and general moral deport- 
 ment by witnesses who had been intimately associated with him 
 for months in General Hoffman's department. His manner was 
 that of a man who was deeply affected by the fact that he found
 
 66 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 himself in a situation in which his duty to his God and his country 
 required him to state facts that had been thrust upon him, and 
 that were now found to be so damaging to those with whom he 
 had, been associating and whom he had regarded as friends. The 
 attempt made by counsel for the defense in their arguments to 
 break the force of his testimony by throwing out the unfounded 
 insinuation that he probably knew of the existence of the conspi- 
 racy, was done for the purpose of engendering a doubt of the 
 simple truth of his utterances which were corroborated by other 
 testimony than his own, and of which he could have had no 
 previous knowledge. Wiechmann's testimony, taking into con- 
 sideration the lies told to him and the deceptions practiced upon 
 him for nearly four months, is in itself absolute proof of his. 
 integrity and of his innocence. In the words of Judge Bingham 
 in all that dread issue, " There was not a breath of suspicion 
 found against his character, nor was a single fact to which he testified 
 contradicted. The defense tried to kill him off with lies and 
 insinuations, but they could not and did not do it." Wiechmann 
 admitted that he had been puzzled to account for some of these 
 occurrences. He could not understand why such persons as 
 Payne and Atzerodt should be received and enjoy the privileges 
 accorded to them by Mrs. Surratt and her son ; but particularly 
 he had had his suspicions aroused by the conduct of Surratt, 
 Payne, and Booth upon their return from their ride as heretofore 
 recited. He had related this occurrence to Captain Gleason, arc 
 officer with whom he was associated in his daily work. He 
 referred to a report or rumor, which had found its way into the 
 papers, of a plot to capture the President, and asked the Captain 
 if he thought it could be possible that this could have been the 
 object of their expedition. Wiechmann's character and actions 
 in the matter could not be discredited by insinuations that had no 
 evidence to rest on for their support. 
 
 Lloyd had rented Mrs. Surratt's farm and tavern at Surrattsville,. 
 and so was her tenant. He was a man of intemperate habits, and 
 there was, I think, taking all things into consideration, strong 
 reason to conclude that he had been entrusted with the secret of 
 the plot ; but of this there was no direct proof, and much less of
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 67 
 
 his having been any further a party to the conspiracy. Even admit- 
 ting that he had this guilty knowledge, it does not disqualify him 
 for telling the truth as to what occurred at the private interviews 
 referred to between himself and Mrs. Surratt, and that these 
 private interviews did take place under the circumstances already 
 related we have the positive testimony of Wiechmann. Lloyd's 
 testimony was drawn out of him by questions suggested by what 
 Wiechmann had previously stated before the Commission. The 
 defense failed entirely to prove that he was a man not to be 
 believed upon his oath. 
 
 They endeavored to break the force of the testimony of Major 
 Smith in regard to Mrs. Surratt solemnly disclaiming any knowl- 
 edge of Payne by claiming that her eyesight was very defective, 
 but failed to establish any evidence of infirmity of sight beyond 
 what was common to a person of her age of forty-five years. 
 
 The evidence of Major Smith was that the hall was well lighted 
 when she was confronted with Payne, and her haste to disavow 
 any knowledge of him with such unnecessary solemnity was itself 
 evidence of guilt. Her eminent volunteer counsel, Hon. Reverdy 
 Johnson, at that time a United States senator from Maryland, did 
 not attempt to assail the testimony against her or to make any 
 reference whatever to her case ; but confined himself to an 
 argument against the constitutionality of her trial by a military 
 commission and against the jurisdiction of the court. In view of 
 all the facts above narrated, all of which were proven by the 
 witnesses brought before the Commission by the government, the 
 author thinks it would be impossible for any candid mind to 
 escape from the conclusion that Mn.. Surratt was fully informed 
 of the purposes of Booth and her son, and gave to them her 
 hearty approval and earnest co-operation. We have now pre- 
 sented in narrative form the evidence on which Mrs. Surratt was 
 found guilty and sentenced by the Commission to be hung. Her 
 case was evidently one of those deplorable cases, of which the 
 rebellion furnished so many examples, of a woman so entirely 
 under the influence of disloyalty to her government and so 
 desirous of its overthrow, that she was ready to resort to any 
 means whatever to accomplish that purpose, and so entered heart
 
 68 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 and soul into the schemes of Booth and her son, hoping thereby 
 to serve the cause of the confederacy. 
 
 Arrest of Atzerodt. 
 
 George A. Atzerodt had undertaken for his part the assassina- 
 tion of Vice-President Johnson. He was found to have been a 
 frequent visitor at the Surratt house, and a boon companion of 
 Payne, Surratt, and Booth. It was found that he had taken a 
 room at the Kirkwood House where the Vice-President was stop- 
 ping at the time. He had been assigned to room number 126, 
 on the next floor above that on which was the room occupied by 
 the Vice-President. He had been stopping at the Pennsylvania 
 House from the 2/th of March until the I2th of April, and took 
 this room at the Kirkwood House on the morning of the I4th of 
 April, paying in advance for one day. On the I2th of April he 
 visited this house, and meeting Col. W. R. Nevins in the passage 
 leading to the dining-room, he asked him if he knew where Vice- 
 President Johnson was. Nevins showed him the Vice-President's 
 room, but remarked, " He is now at dinner," pointing him out to 
 Atzerodt as he sat at the table. Atzerodt did not enter the 
 dining-room, but simply looked in at the Vice-President. It was 
 ascertained that Atzerodt had not occupied his room on the night 
 of the I4th, and when the detectives who were on his track came 
 to the Kirkwood House on the afternoon of the I5th, it was 
 found locked, and the door had to be forced. Mr. Lee, the 
 officer in pursuit of him, found in his room, upon gaining admis- 
 sion, a black coat hanging against the wall; underneath the 
 pillow or bolster a revolver loaded and capped, and between the 
 sheets and mattress a large bowie-knife. In the pockets of the 
 coat were found a handkerchief marked " Mary R. Booth," another 
 marked " F. M.," or " F. A. Nelson," and another marked " H," in 
 one corner ; also a bank-book of J. Wilkes Booth, showing a credit 
 of four hundred and fifty-five dollars with the Ontario Bank of 
 Montreal, and a map of Virginia. On the corner of the bank- 
 book was written " J. W. Booth, 53." On the inside of the book, 
 " Mr. J. Wilkes Booth, in account with the Ontario Bank of 
 Montreal, Canada, 1864, October 27; by deposit Cr. $455."
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 69 
 
 This coat evidently belonged to Booth, and its being thus found 
 in Atzerodt's room showed that Booth had visited him there dur- 
 ing the day ; and that he had spent some time with him schooling 
 him in his part was shown by the fact that he had taken off his 
 light overcoat and hung it up against the wall, and had evidently 
 become so much absorbed in mind with the purpose of his visit 
 that he forgot to take his coat when he left. The revolver loaded 
 and capped, and the huge bowie-knife hidden in the bed, serve to 
 explain the nature of the interview between Booth and Atzerodt, 
 and the purpose of death to the Vice-President on the part of the 
 former, and in which purpose at that time Atzerodt no doubt 
 fully concurred. During the stay of Atzerodt at the Pennsylvania 
 House he was frequently called on by Booth, and they were at 
 pains always to hold their interviews in private. 
 
 Atzerodt's whereabouts from the I2th to the I4th of April are 
 not accounted for. On the I4th, after having taken his room "at 
 the Kirkwood, we next find him at a livery-stable on Eighth and 
 E streets, where he procured a bay mare, paying five dollars for 
 her hire for the afternoon. He took her to Naylor's stable and 
 had her put up. Here he was accompanied by Herold. It was 
 about one o'clock P.M. when he had his mare put up. He left and 
 did not return until about seven P.M. On his return he ordered his 
 mare to be saddled, and requested that she should be left stand- 
 ing with the saddle and bridle on until ten o'clock, when he would 
 call for her. He returned at ten, got his mare, and left. He 
 returned the mare to the stable on Eighth and E streets shortly 
 after the assassination of the President, at about eleven o'clock. 
 
 After returning the mare, he boarded a navy-yard car at Sixth 
 Street, and rode down as far as the navy-yard. Finding a man 
 by the name of Briscoe on the car, with whom he was acquainted, 
 he asked him to let him sleep with him in his store. Being refused, 
 he urged his request, and seemed excited. Briscoe asked him if 
 he had heard the news. He replied that he had. 
 
 Not getting permission to lodge with Briscoe, he said he would 
 return to the Pennsylvania House, which he did, arriving there 
 on horseback about twelve M. or one o'clock A.M. He asked 
 the colored boy in waiting at the house to hold his horse whilst
 
 70 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 he went into the bar. He then mounted his horse and left, return- 
 ing again at about two o'clock on foot, in company with another 
 man. They paid for their lodging and retired. Atzerodt, on being 
 requested by the clerk to register before retiring to his room, hesi- 
 tated, and did it with manifest reluctance. These parties arose 
 very early on the morning of the i^th, and left. At about 
 eight o'clock on the morning of the I5th, we find Atzerodt in 
 Georgetown trying to sell his watch to a man with whom he was 
 somewhat acquainted ; but not being able to do so, he pawned 
 his pistol for ten dollars, saying he was going to the country and 
 would come, or send, and redeem it the next week. He was 
 followed and arrested in Montgomery County, Maryland, on the 
 2Oth of April. 
 
 He ate his dinner on the i6th at the house of Mr Hezekiah 
 Metz. There were two or three other persons at the table with 
 him, and all were anxious to hear the news from Washington. 
 He was asked whether it was true, as had been reported in that 
 neighborhood, that General Grant had been killed. Atzerodt, 
 according to the testimony of Metz, replied that " if the man who 
 was to follow him had done so it was likely to be true." There was 
 some conflict of statement, however, between Metz and the other 
 two parties who were at the table, and who were used as witnesses 
 for the defense. These thought he said if it were so, it was likely 
 to have been done by some one who got on the train with him. 
 There are good reasons, however, for concluding that Metz gave 
 his real answer. 
 
 Atzerodt was known in that neighborhood as Andrew Atwood. 
 From Metz's he went to the house of his cousin, Hartman 
 Richter, near the little village of Germantown, and remained 
 there until he was arrested by Sergeant L. W. Grimmell on the night 
 of the 2Oth. Richter denied that there was anybody in his house 
 when inquired of by the Sergeant. When told by the Sergeant 
 that he would have to search the house, he admitted that his cousin 
 was upstairs in bed. His wife then spoke up, saying, "there were 
 three men there for that matter." Atzerodt was brought to Wash- 
 ington and held as a prisoner for trial, as a party to the conspiracy. 
 There is no doubt from the evidence presented, that he was not
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. Jl 
 
 only a party to the conspiracy, but also that Booth had arranged 
 with him and relied on him to assassinate the Vice-President. For 
 this purpose he had removed him from the Pennsylvania to the 
 Kirkwooci House, where the Vice-President had rooms, and was 
 boarding. This change had been made on the morning of the 
 1 4th, and Booth had been there during the day to see that all 
 things were properly arranged. Atzerodt's revolver was found 
 hidden away in his bed, loaded, capped, and ready for use. His 
 bowie-knife also was found secreted in his bed ; and yet 'there 
 is no evidence that he was in his room, or even in the house dur- 
 ing the evening or night. In his defense his counsel set up the 
 plea, and proved it, that he was incapable of committing such a 
 crime, being constitutionally a coward. He was a low-browed, 
 vulgar vagabond, fond of whiskey, tobacco, and vicious company ; 
 a cowardly braggart, covering up his cowardice by a great pre- 
 tense of bravery when the battle was not on ; low enough in moral 
 tone to do any wicked thing, but without physical courage to 
 face the danger connected with what he had engaged to do. 
 Booth had mistaken his man ; but being a member of the con- 
 spiracy, he was equally guilty with Booth. 
 
 Arrest of Spangler. 
 
 On the strength of the facts incidentally presented in the forego- 
 ing narrative, Edward Spangler was taken into military custody, and 
 held as a prisoner for trial. The capture of Herold has already 
 been given. All of these prisoners were held in military custody, 
 and under such precautions as would have rendered any attempt 
 at rescue or escape the height of folly. 
 
 In Booth's trunk a letter was found from Samuel Arnold to 
 Booth, dated at Hookstown, Md., March 2/th, 1865. This letter 
 was signed simply " Sam," but was proved to be in Arnold's hand- 
 writing, and led not only to his own arrest, but also to that of his 
 friend and fellow conspirator, Michael O'Laughlin. Arnold had 
 evidently fallen into a hesitating frame of mind. I feel that I can- 
 not do better than to give this letter entire. It is as follows :
 
 72 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 HOOKSTOWN, BALTIMORE Co., March 27, 1865. 
 
 DEAR JOHN : Was business so important that you could not remain in Baltimore 
 until I saw you? I came in as soon as I could, but found you had gone to Washington. 
 I called also on Mike, but learned from his mother that he had gone out with you and 
 had not returned. I concluded, therefore, that he had gone with you. How inconsid- 
 erate you have been ! When I left you, you stated you would not meet me in a month 
 or so. Therefore, I made application for employment, an answer to which I shall receive 
 during the week. I told my parents I had ceased with you. Can I, then, under exist- 
 ing circumstances, come as you request? You know full well that the government 
 suspicions something is going on there; therefore the undertaking is becoming more 
 complicated. Why not, for the present, desist, for various reasons which, if you look 
 into, you can readily -see, without my making any mention thereof. You, nor any one, 
 can censure me for my present course. You have been its cause, for how can I come 
 now after telling them I had left you ? Suspicion rests upon me now from my whole 
 family and even parties -in the country. I will be compelled to leave home any how, 
 and how soon I care not. None, no, not one, were more in favor of the enterprise than 
 myself, and to-day would be there had you not done as you have : by this I mean, man- 
 ner of proceeding. I am, as you well know, in need. I am, as you may say, in rags; 
 whereas to-day I ought to be well clothed. I do not feel right stalking about with, 
 means, and more from appearances a beggar. I feel my dependence : but even all this 
 would be and was forgotten, for I was one with you. Time more propitious will arrive 
 yet. Do not act rashly or in haste. I prefer your first query : go and see how it will 
 
 be taken at R d, and e'er long I shall be better prepared to again be with you. I 
 
 dislike writing, would sooner verbally make known my views, yet your non- writing 
 causes me thus to proceed. Do not in anger peruse this. Weigh all I have said, and, 
 as a rational man and a friend, you cannot censure or upbraid my conduct. I sincerely 
 trust this, or aught else that shall or may occur, will never be an obstacle to obliterate 
 our former friendship and attachment. Write me to Baltimore, as I expect to be in 
 about Wednesday or Thursday, or, if you can possibly come on, I will Tuesday meet 
 
 you in Baltimore at B . Ever I subscribe myself, 
 
 Your friend, 
 
 SAM. 
 
 Arnold got employment at Fortress Monroe, and was there at the 
 time of the assassination ; but the finding of the above letter in 
 Booth's trunk, as also other evidence constantly turning up in the 
 course of the investigations being made, identifying him with the 
 conspiracy, led to his arrest on the i/th of April at Fortress Monroe. 
 Arnold, when arrested, made a partial confession, relating the cir- 
 cumstances of a meeting of some of the conspirators held at the 
 Lichau House in Washington about three weeks previous to his 
 going to Fortress Monroe. 
 
 This meeting must have occurred within two or three days after 
 the writing of the above letter, immediately before Surratt's visit 
 to Richmond, and was attended by Booth, Surratt, O'Laughlin,
 
 SAMUEL ARNOLD,
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 73 
 
 Atzerodt, Arnold, a man with the alias of Moseby, and another 
 whose name he could not recollect. He denied that he had ever 
 corresponded with Booth, but on being informed of the letter 
 found in Booth's trunk he admitted that he wrote it. He also 
 stated that Booth had letters of introduction to Dr. Mudd and 
 Dr. Queen, but said he did not know from whom Booth got 
 them. He claimed that an angry discussion took place at the 
 meeting referred to. He said he told Booth then that if the 
 thing did not take place that week he would withdraw. Booth 
 got angry at that, and said he ought to be shot for talking in 
 that way. He said that he replied to Booth that two could 
 play at that game ; and that he withdrew from the conspiracy at 
 that time, and occupied his position at Fortress Monroe on the 
 ist of April. It is evident, I think, that as he began to contem- 
 plate the hazards of the enterprise, its dangers began to be more 
 and more apparent to him. His heart failed him, and he was 
 anxious for an excuse to withdraw from it, but had not the courage 
 to peremptorily do so. This is the interpretation I put upon the 
 above letter of the altercation between him and Booth, and of his 
 going to Fortress Monroe. 
 
 There is also apparent in the letter a shade of disappointment 
 and dissatisfaction in regard to pecuniary matters, implying that 
 promised reward had been withheld by Booth. Early in Septem- 
 ber, whilst at a grain threshing, Arnold received a letter contain- 
 ing a fifty-dollar bill. Reading the letter and showing it with the 
 money to a companion, he remarked that " he was flush." He 
 handed the letter to his friend to read, but he, after trying to read 
 a few lines, and finding that he could not understand it on account 
 of its ambiguity, handed it back to Arnold, asking him what it 
 meant. Arnold replied that something big would be seen in the 
 papers one of these days. This was no doubt a retainer's fee, or 
 in other words, an advance payment from Booth. The rather 
 complaining tone of Arnold's letter, hinting at pecuniary embar- 
 rassment, would seem to indicate that Booth's promises of pecu- 
 niary reward had been large, whilst his fulfillment had been far 
 from satisfactory. 
 
 This, amongst other considerations to be named, had evidently
 
 74 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 cooled Arnold's ardor in the prosecution of the plot, and was 
 the cause of his disposition to withdraw from it. 
 
 The probabilities are that his parents and friends suspecting that 
 his intimacy with Booth foreboded evil, and probably suspecting 
 something of his purpose, had so earnestly remonstrated with him as 
 to cause him to stagger or falter in his purpose, and made him 
 anxious for an excuse for breaking with Booth. He perhaps 
 began to regard Booth's plan as quixotic and impracticable, full 
 of hazard, and not likely to succeed. In fact, he stated that he 
 so told Booth at this meeting. He was evidently restive, and 
 thought it had been put off too long to effect the end contem- 
 plated. It does not appear to have been from any awakening of 
 his moral nature that he faltered, neither from cowardice that he 
 weakened ; and so he failed to purge himself of complicity in 
 Booth's guilt. But there was sufficient evidence of his desire to 
 withdraw from any part in the execution of Booth's present pur- 
 poses to extenuate his guilt in a measure, at least, in the judgment 
 of the Commission. 
 
 Arrest of O' Laugklii}. 
 
 Arnold's letter to Booth on the 2/th of March, which was 
 found in Booth's trunk, together with evidence gathered up on 
 every hand as the investigation proceeded, led to the arrest of 
 Michael O'Laughlin at the house of his brother-in-law, in Balti- 
 more, on Monday, the i/th of April, the same day on which 
 Arnold was arrested. When arrested he seemed to understand 
 what it was for, not asking any questions about it. He had gone 
 to Washington on the I3th and remained until Saturday, the I5th. 
 On returning to Baltimore on Saturday night, he was met at the 
 depot by his brother-in-law, who told him that he had been in- 
 quired for by detectives that evening. Being advised by the friend 
 who had accompanied him to Washington and back to remain at his 
 home, he said he would not be arrested at home, as it would kill 
 his mother. Why was he expecting to be arrested ? A man inno- 
 cent of crime never fears or expects arrest. He went to the house 
 of his brother-in-law and quietly awaited the issue. He even 
 requested his brother-in-law to inform the officer of his where- 
 abouts, thus seeming to court arrest.
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 75 
 
 He had carefully thought the thing over, and concluded that 
 the government would not be able to fix guilt upon him, and so 
 he thought to have the benefit of a seeming willingness to be 
 arrested, as presumptive proof of his innocence. He had gone 
 to Washington on the I3th with three companions, ostensibly to 
 see the parade and illumination in commemoration of the sur- 
 render of Lee's army, and to " have a good time," as his com- 
 panions expressed it in their evidence in his behalf on his 
 defense. 
 
 He kept with these companions in the rounds of their drunken 
 carousal and debaucheries enough to blind them as to the real 
 object of his visit. They were drinking freely during the Thursday 
 and Friday of their stay, and were evidently unable to give a con- 
 nected and reliable account of O'Laughlin's whereabouts during 
 the whole of the time. They thought he spent most of the time 
 in company with one or the other of them; but they admitted 
 that he had had a long interview with Booth at his room at the 
 National Hotel on Friday, the I4th. It was positively proven, 
 however, that he was at the house of Secretary Stanton on the 
 occasion of the reception given to General Grant on the night of 
 the 1 3th; that he seemed to be in a state of partial intoxication, 
 and pushed himself through the crowd into the hall inquiring for 
 General Grant, saying he wanted to see him. He was told by the 
 Secretary's son that that was no occasion for him to see him, and 
 to step out onto the pavement where the carriage stopped, and he 
 could see him. He stood for some time in the hall looking in 
 through the door at the General. He also said he wanted to see 
 Stanton, and being asked if it was the Secretary he wished to see, 
 he said it was. The Secretary was pointed out to him, but he did 
 not go to him. His manner was so impertinently obtrusive and 
 rude that he was finally requested to leave, .and was escorted out 
 of the house by the son of the Secretary. Mr. Stanton at first 
 thought him to be intoxicated, but upon conversing with him 
 concluded he was not. It would appear from all this that the part 
 Booth had assigned to him was the assassination of General Grant, 
 and that his visit to the house of the Secretary was for the purpose 
 of so acquainting himself with the form and features of the General
 
 76 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 as to be able readily to identify him. Had not the General been 
 called away on that Friday afternoon, had he accompanied the 
 President to the theatre, as he had intended doing, there is 
 scarcely a doubt that " Peanuts " would have had two horses to 
 hold, or that some other arrangements would have been made for 
 General Grant's assassination that would have made O'Laughlin a 
 companion of Booth in his flight. 
 
 We have now seen the development of Booth's plot, and its 
 partial success, but, as to the real object of it, its entire failure. 
 The thing proposed by the head conspirators, whose agents we 
 have been following up in their efforts for its accomplishment, 
 failed of its realization. They had hoped by the policy of assas- 
 sination to put the rapidly waning cause of the confederacy on its 
 feet again under new and more favorable auspices. 
 
 The cause, at the time of this attempt to thus give it aid, was 
 already lost on the field of military conflict beyond hope of recoveny. 
 The whole people, North and South, saw that the war was at an end ; 
 that the brief day of the so-called Southern Confederacy was over 
 that its sun had set ; and great as must have been the disappoint- 
 ment of those who had so fruitlessly plunged the country into the 
 greatest civil war that history records, they were quite content to 
 accept and make the best of their failure. 
 
 Both parties were glad that the contest had been decided, and 
 of the opportunity to lay down their arms, and return to the pur- 
 suits of peaceful life. Had not Booth kept himself as full of 
 whiskey as he was of his fiendish purpose, had he given himself 
 an opportunity to scan the situation in a duly sober frame of mind, 
 we think it even more than probable he would have abandoned 
 the whole project as useless. But both he and his associates were 
 free and constant drinkers, and by their frequent visits to saloons, 
 as shown by the whole run of the testimony before the Commis- 
 sion, it would seem probable that they scarcely ever drew an abso- 
 lutely sober breath, and so could not realize the true situation of 
 the cause they sought to serve. 
 
 The Canada conspirators are in like manner, according to all the 
 testimony, shown to have been free drinkers. All of their diaboli- 
 cal schemes were most probably the products of minds acting
 
 MICHAEL O'LAUGHLIN.
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 77 
 
 under the influence of alcoholic stimulants, and this may in some 
 degree account for the obtundity of their moral perceptions. It 
 has been said . by one who was personally cognizant of the fact, 
 that alcohol precipitated the rebellion, and that its leaders in both 
 branches of Congress kept themselves constantly under the excite- 
 ment of alcoholic stimulants and so were made reckless of con- 
 sequences. 
 
 Arrest of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. 
 
 It will be remembered that in giving the history of Booth's flight, 
 we found him and Herold at the house of Dr. S. A. Mudd, at 
 about four o'clock on the morning of the i$th of April, they hav- 
 ing ridden thirty miles in about six hours after leaving Washington. 
 They would no doubt have stopped at Mudd's, even had Booth not 
 needed his services as a surgeon, for a short respite and refresh- 
 ment, as the doctor was, as we shall hereafter see, a co-conspirator 
 with Booth. Booth's broken leg had by this time become very 
 painful, and this made it necessary that he should stop to have it 
 dressed. Mudd dressed his leg, as he himself said, as well as he 
 could with the means at his command, and giving them refresh- 
 ments, he placed Booth in a chamber upstairs where he remained 
 until about three o'clock in the afternoon. Mudd and Herold 
 went out, aS Mudd said, to find a carriage in which to take Booth 
 on his journey ; but it is more likely Mudd was showing Herold 
 a by-way toward the Potomac, at the point where they expected 
 to cross, whilst Booth was resting. 
 
 About one o'clock on that afternoon, Lieutenant Dana, with 
 a squad of cavalry, passed down toward Bryantown in pur- 
 suit of Booth, and as there was no doubt a sharp look-out kept 
 from the house of Dr. Mudd, which stood about a quarter of a 
 mile from, and in full view of, the road, they were by this ad- 
 monished of their danger and resumed their flight as soon as they 
 could after the soldiers passed. Thus Mudd got them off of his 
 hands, and started them on their way to his friend, Samuel Cox. 
 On Tuesday, the i8th of April, Mudd was first interviewed, and then 
 denied that there had been any body at his house on the I5th; 
 but upon being pressed with questions, he finally said that two
 
 78 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 strangers had come to his house about four o'clock on Saturday 
 morning on horseback, one of them having a broken leg, and that 
 he had taken them in, dressed the leg, and had a crutch made for 
 the man, and that they had left after breakfast, telling in what 
 direction they had gone, but giving a false cue. He denied know- 
 ing either of them, and said they were entire strangers to him, 
 going on to give a minute description of the men and their horses 
 as though desirous of- giving all the information he could, but 
 with an appearance and manner that created distrust. Being 
 asked if he knew Booth, he said he had been introduced to him at 
 church in the fall before, but had no other acquaintance with 
 him. Being asked if the man whose leg he had dressed waS not 
 Booth, he said he was not. When told by the officer that he 
 would have to search the house, his wife went upstairs and 
 brought down a boot that Mudd had removed from Booth's foot 
 by ripping it down in front, and it was seen that on the inside of 
 the boot leg, near the top, was written, " J. Wilkes," and also the 
 maker's name. Mudd was interviewed two or three times before 
 his arrest, and prevaricated every time so much that he fre- 
 quently contradicted himself. It was noticed that he was never 
 at home when called for, but was not far off, as he always made 
 his appearance in a short time when sent for by his wife. He was 
 finally placed under arrest; and upon the photograph of Booth 
 being shown to him, and being asked if that looked like Booth, 
 he said he thought not, but finally concluded there was some 
 resemblance to Booth across the eyes. He was taken to Wash- 
 ington and held as a prisoner. Mudd was a physician, living on a 
 farm. He had had a considerable number of slaves at the break- 
 ing out of the rebellion, most of whom had left him during the 
 previous winter. His father also, living in the neighborhood, was 
 a large land and slave holder, and Mudd's disloyalty was no doubt 
 of the rabid type. His home was a place of resort for returned 
 rebel soldiers and recruiting parties, and he had a place of con- 
 cealment in the pines near his house, where they were sheltered 
 and cared for, the doctor sending their food to them by his slaves ; 
 and if, at any time, any of these parties ventured to his house to 
 take their meals, a slave was always placed on watch to give notice 
 of the approach of any one.
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 79 
 
 The letter of introduction to Dr. Mudd which Booth had, as 
 related by Arnold, had no doubt been presented in the fall, at the 
 time Mudd admitted having been introduced to him at church ; 
 and from that time their intimacy commenced. This was in 
 November, 1864. 
 
 About the 23d of December, 1864, Mudd visited Booth in 
 Washington, and introduced him to John H. Surratt, under the 
 following circumstances : Wiechmann and Surratt were on the 
 street together, when Wiechmann heard some one call, " Surratt I 
 Surratt ! " and turning round, they were met by Dr. Mudd and Booth. 
 Mudd introduced Booth to Surratt, and then Surratt introduced 
 both of them to Wiechmann. They went, by invitation of Booth, 
 to the National Hotel, where Booth had a room, and were served 
 by him with wine and cigars. Mudd went out into a passage and 
 called Booth. They remained out of the room for a short time, and 
 conversed in a low tone of voice. Upon their return to the room 
 Booth called Surratt, and the three went out again into the passage, 
 and were engaged for some time in a private conference. Upon 
 their return, Mudd made an explanation, by way of apology, to 
 Wiechmann, saying that Booth wanted to buy his farm, but he did 
 not care to sell. Booth also apologized, giving the same excuse. 
 The three then took seats around a table, when Booth took an 
 envelope from his pocket, and upon this, with his pencil, com- 
 menced drawing lines, as if marking roads. Whilst engaged in 
 doing this the three were conversing in so low a tone that Wiech- 
 mann could not hear what was said. 
 
 Mudd made one or two other visits to Washington during the 
 winter, and his business seemed always to be with Booth and 
 Surratt. At least, he was always found in their company. 
 
 According to one of Mudd's various statements, Booth and 
 Herold left his house between three and four o'clock in the after- 
 noon. It will be noted that he at first denied their having been 
 there at all. Then he admitted that two strangers had been there 
 on Saturday morning ; that he had dressed a broken leg for one 
 of them, and had a crutch made for him, and they left after break- 
 fast. That they remained until after Dana and his party passed 
 down to Bryantown, there is no doubt ; and that they left as soon
 
 80 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 as possible, assisted by Mudd, after the soldiers passed, as we have 
 heretofore seen. Mudd, after his conviction and sentence, whilst 
 being conveyed to the Dry Tortugas, admitted, voluntarily, to 
 Captain Dutton that he knew Booth when he came to his house 
 on the morning of the I5th of April; and also that he went to 
 Washington in December by appointment with Booth, to introduce 
 him to Surratt. He might just as well have admitted his com- 
 plicity in the conspiracy. Mudd's expression of countenance was 
 that of a hypocrite. He had the bump of secretiveness largely 
 developed ; and it would have taken months of favorable acquaint- 
 anceship to have removed the unfavorable impression made by the 
 first scanning of the man. He had the appearance of a natural 
 born liar and deceiver. 
 
 We have now Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, Edward Spangler, Lewis 
 Payne, David E. Herold, Samuel Arnold, Michael O'Laughlin, 
 George A. Atzerodt, and Dr. Samuel Mudd under arrest and held 
 for trial by the government under the charge of being co-con- 
 spirators with John H. Surratt, Booth, and others yet to be named, 
 and still others unknown and who never will be known. The evi- 
 dence yet to be adduced makes it clear that there were quite a 
 number of these conspirators in Washington at the time of the 
 assassination who were never discovered, encouraging by their 
 presence, and aiding and abetting, Booth and his associates. 
 
 There are good reasons for believing that the purpose of Booth 
 and his fellow-conspirators was known to many, both in Canada 
 and the United States, who were interested in the destruction of 
 our government. It may yet happen that a sufficient amount of 
 evidence may be found to justify this, or some other writer, in 
 making explicit charges that are for the present withheld. 
 
 In regard to the persons above named who were put upon their 
 trial, the writer will only say that, in giving an account of the 
 grounds of arrest in each case, he has stated the facts proven by 
 unimpeached witnesses before the Commission, whose testimony 
 governed the decisions of the court in their respective cases, and 
 that his statements of the facts in evidence will be found to be 
 fully vindicated by a critical examination and study of the testi- 
 mony as given by Pittman in his official report of the trial. He
 
 GEORGE E. ATZERODT.
 
 UNRAVELLING THE CONSPIRACY. 8 1 
 
 ieels sure that no one, with that report before him, can impeach 
 the account he has given of the parts acted by each one of the 
 prisoners named in this great tragedy ; and upon these facts must 
 rest the judgment of mankind, as did the judgment of the court.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL. 
 What Sort of Trial should be given, Civil or Military ? 
 
 THE first question that presented itself to the government in 
 regard to these prisoners was, as to what kind of a trial should be 
 given them, whether civil or military? The civil courts were open 
 in the District of Columbia at the time, and had been all through 
 the war. There was no question that a form of trial could be had 
 in the civil courts ; but there was at the same time as little ques- 
 tion that, under existing circumstances, such a trial would only 
 result in a miscarriage of justice. The great crime had been com- 
 mitted during the existence of a state of war, and the courts were 
 only able to carry on their functions under the protection of the 
 arms of the government. 
 
 This aegis being withdrawn, the administration of justice through 
 the civil courts would have been an impossibility, even in the 
 capital of the nation ; and with this protection it was equally im- 
 possible to secure the demands of justice through the civil courts 
 in cases involving the issues of the war, as a jury of partizans 
 could not be expected to decide impartially if all belonged to one 
 party, and if divided on party lines, they could not be expected to 
 decide at all. The latter alternative was the only one on which a 
 jury could have been impaneled, under the rules of law, at that 
 time, in the District of Columbia. Outside of the soldiery there 
 were as many enemies as friends of the government in the popula- 
 tion of the district, to say the least, and many of these enemies 
 were passing under the guise of friends. In this state of things it 
 was obvious that it would be futile to send these prisoners before 
 a civil tribunal for trial. The government had evidence that a 
 82
 
 QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL. 83 
 
 great conspiracy existed, the purpose of which was to aid the rebel 
 cause by a series of assassinations, and that what had happened 
 was in pursuance of that plan, but only its partial accomplishment. 
 The extent of this conspiracy had not been fully revealed, but its 
 spirit and purpose were known, and both wisdom and good policy 
 required that it should be met with the utmost promptitude and 
 suppressed with no faltering hand. These persons had been 
 arrested by the military police, and were held as prisoners in 
 military custody. They were held not as prisoners of war, but 
 as secret active enemies of the government, guilty of a crime the 
 purpose of which was to aid the rebellion, and this being their 
 purpose, it took them out of the realm of civil, into the realm of 
 martial, law. Their crime was regarded as an act of war, inas- 
 much as its purpose was to aid the existing armed rebellion. The 
 means by which they thus sought to give it aid were morally rep- 
 rehensible, and such as had long been rejected by the enlightened 
 sentiment of the civilized and Christian nations of the earth. The 
 crime was a blow at the life of the nation, in the person of its 
 chosen head, and was committed in the nation's capital, and within 
 the intrenched lines and fortifications thereof ; and so it was decided 
 that the prisoners were properly subject to a trial by a military 
 commission. 
 
 President Lincoln's order of September 25th, 1862, had not 
 been rescinded and was still in force, and under this order the pris- 
 oners were, from the purpose of their crime, subject to a military 
 trial. They could not, under the articles of war, be sent before a 
 court-martial for trial, but could, under martial law, which is 
 only the common law in a state of war, be tried by a military 
 commission. 
 
 The chief conspirators, on whom rested the responsibility of the 
 plot, were still at large, and in an attitude of desperate hos- 
 tility towards the government. The extent of their plans, and the 
 means at their command for their execution, could not be known, 
 and so it was a matter of the utmost importance to deal with the 
 prisoners in the most summary manner consistent with the ends 
 of justice. The President requested the attorney general, Hon. 
 James A. Speed, a Kentuckian by birth, to give his official
 
 84 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 opinion as to whether these persons implicated in this crime could 
 be tried before a military tribunal, or must be tried before a civil 
 court. As the reply of the Attorney General furnishes an exhaus- 
 tive discussion of the different conditions existing under a state of 
 peace and a state of war, and shows that whilst in a state of peace 
 the Constitution throws its shield of protection over the life, 
 liberty, and property of the citizen, even the humblest, its pro- 
 visions cannot afford protection to these in a state of war, and 
 that martial law, or the common law of war comes in in the place of 
 the Constitution to ameliorate as much as possible the miseries of 
 war, and secure, as far as possible, the ends of justice and mercy ; 
 and as it constitutes a most important and interesting document 
 worthy of the careful study of every young man who desires to 
 become well informed on the most important questions of our 
 national life, I shall give it a place entire, and commend it to 
 careful perusal and study. 
 
 Opinion of the Attorney General. 
 
 The President was assassinated at a theatre in the city of Washington. At the 
 time of the assassination a civil war was flagrant, the city of Washington was defended 
 by fortifications regularly and constantly manned, the principal police of the city was by 
 federal soldiers, the public offices and property in the city were all guarded by soldiers, 
 and the President's house and person were, or should have been, under the guard of 
 soldiers. Martial law had been declared in the District of Columbia, but the civil courts 
 were open and held their regular sessions, and transacted business as in times of peace. 
 Such being the facts, the question is one of great importance, important because it 
 involves the constitutional guarantees thrown about the rights of the citizen, and because 
 the security of the army and government in time of war is involved; important, as it 
 involves a seeming conflict between the laws of peace and war. Having given the 
 question propounded the patient and earnest consideration its magnitude and importance 
 require, I will proceed to give the reasons why I am of the opinion that the conspirators 
 not only may but ought to be tried by a military tribunal. A civil court of the United 
 States is created by a law of Congress, under and according to the Constitution. To 
 the Constitution and the law we must look to ascertain how the court is constituted, the 
 limits of its jurisdiction, and what its mode of procedure. A military tribunal exists 
 under and according to the Constitution in time of war. Congress may prescribe how 
 all such tribunals are to be constituted, what shall be their jurisdiction and mode of 
 procedure. Should Congress fail to create such tribunals, then, under the Constitution, 
 they must be constituted according to the laws and usages of civilized warfare. They 
 may take cognizance of such offences as the laws of war permit; they must proceed 
 according to the customary usages of such tribunals in time of war, and inflict such 
 punishments as are sanctioned by the practice of civilized nations in time of war. In
 
 QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL. 85 
 
 time of peace, neither Congress nor the military can create any military tribunals, except 
 such as are made in pursuance of that clause of the Constitution which gives to Congress 
 the power "to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces." I do 
 not think that Congress can, in time of war or peace, under this clause of the Constitu- 
 tion, create military tribunals for the adjudication of offenses committed by persons not 
 engaged in, or belonging to, such forces. 
 
 This is a proposition too plain for argument. But it does not follow that because 
 such military tribunals cannot be created by Congress under this clause that they cannot 
 be created at all. Is there no other power conferred by the Constitution upon Congress 
 or the military under which such tribunals may be created in time of war ? That the law 
 of nations constitutes a part of the law of the land must be admitted. The laws of nations 
 are expressly made laws of the land by the Constitution when it says that " Congress 
 shall have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, 
 and offences against the law of nations. To define is to give the limits or precise mean- 
 ing of a word or thing in being; to make is to call into being. Congress has power to 
 define, not to make, the laws of nations; but Congress has power to make rules for the 
 government of the army and navy. From the very face of the Constitution, then, it is 
 evident that the laws of nations do constitute a part of the laws of the land. But 
 very soon after the organization of the federal government, Mr. Randolph, then attorney 
 general, said: "The law of nations, although not specifically adopted by the Constitu- 
 tion, is essentially a part of the law of the land. Its obligation commences and runs 
 with the existence of a nation, subject to some modifications on points of indifference." 
 The framers of the Constitution knew that a nation could not maintain an honorable 
 place among the nations of the world that does not regard the great and essential prin- 
 ciples of the law of nations as a part of the law of the land. Hence Congress may 
 define those laws but cannot abrogate them, or, as Mr. Randolph says, may "modify on 
 some points of indifference." 
 
 That the laws of nations constitute a part of the laws of the land, is established from 
 the face of the Constitution upon principle and by authority. But the laws of war 
 constitute much the greater part of the law of nations. Like the other laws of nations, 
 they exist and are of binding force upon the departments and citizens of the govern- 
 ment, though not defined by any law of Congress. No one that has ever glanced at 
 the many treatises that have been published in different ages of the world by great, 
 good, and learned men, can fail to know that the laws of war constitute a part of the 
 law of nations, and that those laws have been prescribed with tolerable accuracy. Con- 
 gress can declare war. When war is declared it must be under the Constitution, carried 
 on according to the known usages and laws of war among civilized nations. Under the 
 power to define these laws, Congress cannot abrogate them, or authorize their infraction. 
 
 The Constitution does not permit this government to prosecute a war as an uncivil- 
 ized and barbarous people. As war is required by the frame-work of our government to 
 be prosecuted according to the known usages of war among the civilized nations of the 
 earth, it is important to understand what are the obligations, duties, and responsibilities 
 imposed by war upon the military. Congress, not having defined, as under the Consti- 
 tution it might have done, the laws of war, we must look to the usage of nations to 
 ascertain the powers conferred in war, on whom the exercise of these powers devolve, 
 over whom, and to what extent do these powers reach, and in how far the citizen and 
 the soldier are bound by the legitimate use thereof. The power conferred by war is, of 
 course, adequate to the end to be accomplished, and not greater than what is necessary
 
 86 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 to be accomplished. The law of war, like every other code of laws, declares what shall 
 not be done, and does not say what may be done. 
 
 The legitimate use of the great power of war, or rather the prohibitions upon the 
 use of that power, increase or diminish as the necessity of the case demands. When a 
 city is besieged and hard pressed the commander may exert an authority over the non- 
 combatants which he may not when no enemy is near. All wars against a domestic 
 enemy, or to repel invasions, are prosecuted to preserve the government. If the invad- 
 ing force can be overcome by the ordinary civil police of a country, it should be done 
 without bringing upon the country the terrible scourge of war; if a commotion or insur- 
 rection can be put down by the ordinary process of law, the military should not be 
 called out. A defensive foreign war is declared and carried on because the civil police 
 is inadequate to repel it; a civil war is waged because the laws cannot be peacefully 
 enforced by the ordinary tribunals of the country through civil process and by civil 
 officers. Because of the utter inability to keep the peace and maintain order by cus- 
 tomary officers and agencies in time of peace, armies are organized and put into the 
 field. They are called out and invested with the powers of war to prevent total anarchy 
 and to preserve the government. 
 
 Peace is the normal condition of a country, and war abnormal, neither being without 
 law, but each having laws appropriate to the condition of society. The maxim enter 
 arma silent leges is never wholly true. The object of war is to bring society out of its 
 abnormal condition; and the laws of war aim to have that done with the least possible 
 injury to persons and property. Anciently, when two nations were at war the conqueror 
 had, or asserted, the right to take from his enemy his life, liberty, and property: if 
 either was spared it was a favor, or act of mercy. By the laws of nations, and of war 
 as a part thereof, the conqueror was deprived of this right. 
 
 When two governments, foreign to each other, are at war, or when a civil wai 
 becomes territorial, all of the people of the respective belligerents become by the law 
 of nations the enemies of each other. As enemies they cannot hold intercourse, but 
 neither can kill or injure the other except under a commission from their respective gov- 
 ernments. So humanizing have been, and are, the laws of war, that it is a high offense 
 against them to kill an enemy without such commission. The laws of war demand that 
 a man shall not take human life except under a license from his government; and under 
 the Constitution of the United States no license can be given by any department of the 
 government to take human life in war, except according to the law and usages of war. 
 Soldiers regularly in the service have the license of the government to deprive men, the 
 active enemies of their government, of their liberty and lives: their commission so to 
 act is as perfect and as legal as that of a judge to adjudicate; but the soldier must act 
 in obedience to the laws of war, as the judge must in obedience to the civil law. A 
 civil judge must try criminals in the mode prescribed in the Constitution and the law; 
 so, soldiers must kill or capture according to the laws of war. Non-combatants are not 
 to be disturbed or interfered with by the armies of either party except in extreme cases. 
 
 Armies are called out and organized to meet and overcome the active acting public 
 enemies. But enemies with which armies have to deal are of two classes. I. Open, 
 active participants in hostilities, as soldiers who wear the uniform, move under the flag, 
 and hold the appropriate commission from their government, openly assuming to dis- 
 charge the duties and meet the responsibilities and dangers of soldiers, they are entitled 
 to all belligerent rights, and should receive all the courtesies due to soldiers. The true 
 soldier is proud to acknowledge and respect those rights, and ever cheerfully extends
 
 QUESTION'S PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL. 87 
 
 these courtesies. 2. Secret, but active participants, as spies, brigands, bushwhackers, 
 jayhawkers, war-rebels, and assassins. In all wars, and especially civil wars, such 
 secret, active enemies rise up to annoy and attack an army, and must be met and put 
 down by the army. When lawless wretches become so impudent and powerful as not 
 to be controlled and governed by the ordinary tribunals of a country, armies are called 
 out and the laws of war invoked. War has never been and can never be conducted on 
 the principle that an army is but a posse comitalus of a civil magistrate. An army, like 
 all other organized bodies, has a right, and its first duty is to protect its own existence, 
 and the existence of all its parts, by the means and in the mode usual among civilized 
 nations when at war. The question arises, then, do the laws of war authorize a differ- 
 ent mode of proceeding and the use of different means against secret active enemies 
 from those used against open active enemies? As has been said, the open enemy or 
 soldier in time of war may be met in battle and killed, wounded, or taken prisoner, or 
 so placed by the lawful strategy of war as that he is powerless. Unless the law of self- 
 preservation absolutely demands it, the life of a wounded enemy or a prisoner must be 
 spared. 
 
 Unless pressed thereto by the extremest necessity, the laws of war condemn and 
 punish with great severity harsh or cruel treatment to a wounded enemy or a prisoner. 
 Certain stipulations and agreements, tacit or express, betwixt the open belligerent parties 
 are permitted by the laws of war, and are held to be of a very high and sacred character. 
 Such is the tacit understanding, or it may be usage of war, in regard to flags of truce. 
 Flags of truce are resorted to as a means of saving human life, or alleviating human 
 suffering. When not used with perfidy, the laws of war require that they should be 
 respected. The Romans regarded embassadors betwixt belligerents as persons to be 
 treated with consideration and respect. Plutarch, in his life of Caesar, tells us that the 
 barbarians in Gaul, having sent some embassadors to Caesar, he detained them, charging 
 fraudulent practices, and led his army to battle, obtaining a great victory. When the 
 senate decreed festivals and sacrifices for the victory, Cato declared it to be his opinion 
 that Caesar ought to be given into the hands of the barbarians, that so the guilt which 
 this breach of faith might otherwise bring upon the state might be expiated by trans- 
 ferring the curse on him who was the occasion of it. Under the Constitution and laws 
 of the United States, should a commander be guilty of such a flagrant breach of law as 
 Cato charged upon Caesar, he would not be delivered to the enemy, but would be pun- 
 ished after a military trial. 
 
 The many honorable gentlemen who hold commissions in the army of the United 
 States, and have been deputed to conduct war according to the laws of war, would 
 keenly feel it as an insult to their profession of arms for any one to say they could not 
 or would not punish a fellow soldier who was wantonly guilty of cruelty to a prisoner, 
 or perfidy towards the bearer of a flag of truce. The laws of war permit capitulations 
 of surrender and paroles. They are agreements betwixt belligerents, and should be 
 scrupulously observed and performed. They are contracts wholly unknown to civil tri- 
 bunals. Parties to such contracts must answer any breaches thereof to the customary 
 military tribunals in time of war. If an officer of rank, possessing the pride that 
 becomes a soldier and a gentleman, who should capitulate to surrender his forces and 
 property under his command and control, be charged with a fraudulent breach of the 
 terms of surrender, the laws of war do not permit that he should be punished without a 
 trial, or, if innocent, that he should have no means of wiping out the foul imputation. 
 If a paroled prisoner is charged with a breach of his parole, he may be punished, if
 
 88 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 guilty, but not without a trial. He should be tried by a military tribunal, constituted 
 and proceeding as the laws and usages of war prescribe. 
 
 The law and usage of war contemplate that soldiers have a high sense of personal 
 honor. The true soldier is proud to feel and know that his enemy possesses personal 
 honor, and will conform and be obedient to the laws of war. In a spirit of justice, 
 and with a wise appreciation of such feelings, the laws of war protect the honor and 
 character of an open enemy. When, by the fortunes of war, one open enemy is thrown 
 into the hands and power of another, and is charged with dishonorable conduct and a 
 breach of the laws of war, he must be tried according to the usages of war. Justice 
 and fairness say that an open enemy to whom dishonorable conduct is imputed has a 
 right to demand a trial. If such a demand can be rightfully made, surely it cannot be 
 rightfully refused. It is to be hoped that the military authorities of this country will 
 never refuse such a demand because there is no act of Congress that authorizes it. In 
 time of war the law and usages of war authorize it, and they are a part of the law of 
 the land. One belligerent may request the other to punish for breaches of the laws of 
 war, and, regularly, such a request should be made before retaliatory measures are- 
 taken. Whether the laws of war have been infringed or not is, of necessity, a question, 
 to be decided by the laws and usages of war, and is cognizable before a military tribunal. 
 When prisoners of war conspire to escape, or are guilty of a breach of approp'riate and 
 necessary rules of prison discipline, they may be punished, but not without trial. The 
 commander who should order every prisoner charged with improper conduct to be shot 
 or hung would be guilty of a high offense against the laws of war, and should be 
 punished therefor after a military trial. If the culprit should be condemned and exe- 
 cuted, the commander would be as free from guilt as if the man had been killed in 
 battle. It is manifest from what has been said, that military tribunals exist under and 
 according to the laws of war, in the interest of justice and mercy. They are established 
 to save human life and to prevent cruelty as far as possible. The commander of an 
 army in time of war has the same power to organize military tribunals and to execute 
 their judgments that he has to set his squadrons in the field and fight battles. His 
 authority in each case is from the laws and usages of war. Having seen that there 
 must be military tribunals to decide questions arising in time of war betwixt belligerents, 
 who are open and active enemies, let us next see whether the laws of war do not 
 authorize such tribunals to determine the fate of those who are active but secret partici- 
 pants in the hostilities. In Mr. Wharton's " Elements of International Law," he says: 
 "The effect of a state of war, lawfully declared to exist, is to place all the subjects of 
 each belligerent power in a state of natural hostility. The usage of nations has modi- 
 fied this maxim by legalizing such acts of hostility only as are committed by those who 
 are authorized by the express or implied command of the State, such as the regularly 
 commissioned naval and military forces of the nation, and all others called out in its 
 defense, or spontaneously defending themselves in case of necessity, without any express- 
 authority for that purpose." Cicero tells us in his offices, that by the Roman feudal 
 law no person could lawfully engage in battle with the public enemy without being reg- 
 ularly enrolled, and taking the military oath. This was a regulation sanctioned both by 
 policy and religion. The horrors of war would indeed be greatly aggravated if every 
 individual of the belligerent States were allowed to plunder and slay indiscriminately 
 the enemies' subjects without being in any manner accountable for his conduct. Hence v 
 it is in land-wars irregular bands oj marauders are liable to be treated as lawless- 
 banditti, not entitled to the protection of the mitigated usages of war as practiced by 
 civilized nations.
 
 QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL. 89 
 
 In speaking upon the subject of banditti, Patrick Henry said in the Virginia Conven- 
 tion : " The honorable gentleman has given you an elaborate account of what he judges 
 tyrannical legislation, and an ex-post facto law (in the case of Josiah Philips); he has mis- 
 interpreted the facts. That man was not executed by a tyrannical stroke of power, nor 
 was he a Socrates; he was a fugitive murderer and an outlaw; a man who commanded 
 an infamous banditti, and at a time when the war was at the most perilous stage he com- 
 mitted the most cruel and shocking barbarities; he was an enemy to the human name. 
 Those who declare war against the human race may be struck out of existence as sooa 
 as apprehended. He was not executed according to those beautiful legal ceremonies, 
 which are pointed out by the law in criminal cases. The enormity of his crime did not 
 entitle him to it. I am truly a friend to legal forms and methods; but, sir, the occasion 
 warranted the measure. A pirate, an outlaw, or a common enemy to all mankind may 
 be put to death at any time. It is justified by the law of war and of nations." No 
 reader, not to say student, of the law of nations can doubt that Mr. Wheaton and Mr. 
 Henry have fairly stated the laws of war. Let it be constantly borne in mind that they 
 are talking of the law in a state of war. These banditti that spring up in time of war 
 are respecters of no law, human or divine, of peace or of war, are hastes humani generis, 
 and may be hunted down like wolves. Thoroughly desperate and perfectly lawless, no 
 man can be required to peril his life in venturing to take them prisoners; as prisoners 
 no trust can be reposed in them. But they are occasionally made prisoners. Being 
 prisoners, what is to be done with them? If they are public enemies, assuming and 
 exercising the right to kill, and are not regularly authorized to do so, they must be 
 apprehended and dealt with by the military. No man can doubt the right and duty of 
 the military to make prisoners of them, and being public enemies it is the duty of the 
 military to punish them for any infractions of the laws of war. 
 
 But the military cannot ascertain whether they are guilty or not without the aid of a 
 military tribunal. In all wars, and especially in civil wars, secret but active enemies are 
 almost as numerous as open ones. That fact has contributed to make civil wars such 
 scourges to the countries in which they rage. In nearly all foreign wars the contending 
 parties speak different languages and have different habits and manners, but in most 
 civil wars that is not the case; hence there is a security in participating secretly in 
 hostilities that induces many to thus engage. War prosecuted according to the most 
 civilized usage is horrible, but its horrors are greatly aggravated by the immemorial 
 habits of plunder, rape, and murder practiced by secret but active participants. Certain 
 laws and usages have been adopted by the civilized world in wars between nations that 
 are not of kin to one another, for the purpose and to the effect of arresting or softening 
 many of the necessary cruel consequences of war. How strongly bound are we, then, 
 in the midst of a great war where brother and personal friend are fighting against 
 brother and friend, to adopt and be governed by these usages. A public enemy must or 
 should be dealt with in all wars by the same laws. The fact they are public enemies 
 being the same, they should deal with each other according to those laws of war that are 
 contemplated by the Constitution. 
 
 Whatever rules have been adopted and practiced by the civilized nations of the 
 world in war to soften its hardships and severity should be adopted and practiced by us 
 in this war. That the laws of war authorize commanders to create and establish military 
 commissions, courts or tribunals for the trial of offenders against the laws of "war, 
 whether they be open or secret participants in the hostilities, cannot be denied. That 
 the judgments of such tribunals may have been sometimes harsh, and sometimes even
 
 90 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 tyrannical, does not prove that they ought not to exist, nor does it prove that they are 
 not constituted in the interest of justice and mercy. Considering the power that the 
 laws of war give over secret participants in hostilities, such as banditti, guerillas, spies, 
 etc., the position of a commander would be miserable indeed if he could not call to his 
 aid the judgments of such tribunals; he would become a mere butcher of men without 
 the power to ascertain justice, and there can be no mercy where there is no justice. 
 War in its mildest form is horrible ; but take away from the contending armies the ability 
 and right to organize what is now known as a Bureau of Military Justice, they would 
 soon become monster savages unrestrained by any and all ideas of law and justice. 
 Surely no lover of mankind, no one that respects law and order, no one that has the 
 instinct of justice or that can be softened by mercy, would in time of war take away 
 from the commanders the right to organize military tribunals of justice, and especially 
 such tribunals for the protection of persons charged or suspected of being secret foes and 
 participants in hostilities. It would be a miracle if the records and history of this war 
 do not show occasional cases in which those tribunals have erred; but they will show 
 many, very many cases in which human life would have been taken but for the interpo- 
 sition and judgments of these tribunals. Every student of the laws of war must 
 acknowledge that such tribunals exert a kindly and benign influence in time of war. 
 Impartial history will record the fact that the Bureau of Military Justice, regularly 
 organized during this war, lias saved human life and prevented human suffering. The 
 greatest suffering patiently endured by soldiers, and the hardest battles gallantly fought 
 during this protracted struggle, are not more creditable to the American character than 
 the establishment of this bureau. 
 
 This people have such an educated and profound respect for law and justice, such 
 a love of mercy, that they have in the midst of this greatest of civil wars systematized 
 and brought into regular order tribunals that before this war existed under the law of 
 war, but without general rule. To condemn the tribunals that have been established 
 under this bureau is to condemn and denounce the war itself, or, justifying the war, to 
 insist that it shall be prosecuted according to the harshest rules, and without the aid of 
 laws, usages, and customary agencies for mitigating those rules. If such tribunals had 
 not existed before, under the laws and usages of war, the American citizen might as 
 proudly point to their establishment as to our inimitable and inestimable Constitutions. 
 It must be constantly borne in mind that such tribunals and such a bureau cannot exist 
 except in time of war, and cannot then take cognizance of offenders and offenses where 
 the civil courts are open, except offenders and offenses against the laws of war. But it 
 is insisted by some, and doubtless with honesty, and with a zeal commensurate with 
 their honesty, that such tribunals can have no constitutional existence. The argument 
 against their constitutionality may be shortly, and I think, fairly stated thus : Congress 
 alone can establish military or civil judicial tribunals. As Congress has not established 
 military tribunals, except such as have been created under the articles of war, and 
 which articles are made in pursuance of that clause in the Constitution which gives to 
 Congress the power to make rules for the government of the army and navy, any other 
 tribunal is and must be plainly unconstitutional, and all its acts void. This objection, 
 thus stated, or stated in any form, begs the question. It assumes that Congress alone 
 can establish military judicial tribunals. Is that assumption true ? 
 
 We have seen that when war comes, the laws and usages of war come with it, and 
 that during the war they are a part of the laws of the land. Under the Constitution, 
 Congress may define and punish offenses against those laws, but in default of Congress
 
 QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL. 91 
 
 defining those laws and prescribing punishment for their infraction, and the mode of 
 proceeding to ascertain whether an offense has been committed, and what punishment 
 is to be inflicted, the army must be governed by the laws and usages of war as under- 
 stood and practiced by the civilized nations of the world. It has been abundantly 
 shown that these tribunals are constituted by the army in the interest of justice and 
 mercy, and for the purpose and to the effect of mitigating the horrors of war. 
 
 But it may be insisted that though the law of war, being part of the law of nations, con- 
 stitute a part of the laws of the land, that those laws must be regarded as modified so far, 
 and whenever they come in direct conflict with plain constitutional provisions. The follow- 
 ing clauses of the constitution are principally relied upon to show the conflict betwixt the 
 laws of war and the Constitution. " The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeach- 
 ment, shall be by the jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crime 
 shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be 
 at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." " No person shall 
 be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or 
 indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the 
 militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be 
 subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be com- 
 pelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, 
 liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for 
 public use without just compensation" (Article V. of the amendments). In all crim- 
 inal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an 
 impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, 
 which district shall have prievously been ascertained by law, and be informed of the 
 nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with witnesses against him, to 
 have compulsory process for obtaining witnessess in his favor, and to have the assist- 
 ance of counsel for his defense " (Article VI. of the amendments). These provisions 
 of the Constitution are intended to fling around the life, liberty and property of a citizen 
 all the guarantees of a jury trial. 
 
 These constitutional guarantees cannot be estimated too highly, or protected too 
 sacredly. The reader of history knows that for many weary ages the people suffered for 
 the want of them; it would not only be stupidity but madness in us not to preserve them. 
 No man has a deeper conviction of their value, or a more sincere desire to preserve and 
 perpetuate them, than I have. Nevertheless, these sacred and exalted provisions of the 
 Constitution must not be read alone and by themselves, but must be read and taken in 
 connection with other provisions. The Constitution was framed by great men men of 
 learning and large experience, and it is a wonderful monument of their wisdom. Well 
 versed in the history of the world, they knew that the nation for which they were fram- 
 ing a government would, unless all history were false, have wars foreign and domestic. 
 Hence the government framed by them is clothed with the power to make and carry 
 on a war. As has been shown, when war comes the laws of war come with it. In- 
 fractions of the laws of nations are not denominated crimes, but offenses. Hence the 
 expression in the Constitution that Congress shall have power to define and punish 
 offenses against the law of nations. Many of the offenses against the law of nations 
 for which a man may lose his life, his liberty, or his property are not crimes. It is an 
 offense against the law of nations to break a lawful blockade, and for which a forfeiture 
 of the property is the penalty, and yet the running of a blockade has never been con- 
 sidered a crime; to hold communication or intercourse with the enemy is a high offense
 
 92 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 against the laws of war, and for which those laws prescribe punishment, and yet it is. 
 not a crime ; to act as a spy is an offense against the laws of war, and the penalty for 
 which, in all ages, has been death, and yet it is not a crime ; to violate a flag of truce- 
 is an offense against the laws of war, and yet it is not a crime of which a civil court can. 
 take cognizance; to unite with banditti, jayhawkers, guerrillas, or any other unauthorized- 
 marauders is a high offense against the laws of war ; the offense is complete when the 
 band is organized or joined. The atrocities committed by such a band do not constitute 
 the offenses, but make the reasons, and sufficient reasons they are, why such banditti 
 are denounced by the laws of war. Some of the offenses against the laws of war are 
 crimes, and some are not. Because they are crimes they do not cease to be offenses- 
 against the laws of war; nor because they are not crimes or misdemeanors do they fail 
 to be offenses against the laws of war. Murder is a crime, and the murderer, as such, 
 must be proceeded against in the form and manner prescribed by the Constitution. In 
 committing the murder an offense may also have been committed against the laws of 
 war; for that offense he must answer to the laws of war, and the tribunals legalized 
 by that law. There is, then, an apparent but no real conflict in the constitutional 
 provisions. 
 
 Offenses against the laws of war must be dealt with and punished under the Con- 
 stitution, as the laws of war, they being a part of the law of nations, direct; crimes 
 must be dealt with and punished as the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, 
 may direct. Congress has not undertaken to define the code of war nor to punish offenses- 
 against it. In the case of a spy, Congress has undertaken to say who shall be deemed a 
 spy and how he shall be punished. But every lawyer knows that a spy was a well known 
 offender under the laws of war, and that under, and according, to these laws he could have 
 been tried and punished without an act of Congress. " This is admitted by the act of Con- 
 gress when it says that he shall suffer death " according to the laws and usuages of war," 
 The act is simply declaratory of the law. That portion of the Constitution which declares 
 that no " person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of 
 law " has such direct reference to and connection with trials for crime and criminal 
 prosecutions, that comment upon it would seem to be unnecessary. Trials for offenses 
 against the laws of war are not embraced nor intended to be embraced in these provisions. 
 If this is not so, then every man who kills another in battle is a murderer, for he deprived 
 a "person of life without that due process of law" contemplated by this provision; 
 every soldier that marches across a field in battle array is liable to an action for trespass,, 
 because he does so without that due process of law. The argument that flings around 
 offenders against the laws of war these guarantees of the Constitution would convict 
 all the soldiers of our army of murder; no prisoners could be taken and held; the 
 army could not move. 
 
 The absurd consequences that would of necessity flow from such an argument show- 
 that it cannot be the true construction it cannot be what was intended by the 
 framers of that instrument. One of the prime motives for the Union and a federal 
 government was to confer the powers of war. If any provisions of the Constitution 
 are so in conflict with the power to carry on war as to destroy and make it valueless, 
 then the instrument, instead of being a great and wise one, is a miserable failure, a felo 
 de se. If any man should sue out a writ of habeas corpus, and the returns show that he 
 belonged to the army or navy, and was held to be tried for some offense against the 
 rules and articles of war, the writ should be dismissed, and the party remanded to 
 answer to the charges. So, in time of war, if a man should sue out a writ of habeas
 
 QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL. 93 
 
 corpus, and it is made appear that he is in the hands of the military as a prisoner of 
 -war, the writ should be dismissed, and the prisoner remanded to be disposed of as the 
 laws and usages of war require. If the prisoner be a regular unoffending soldier of 
 the opposing party to the war, he should be treated with all the courtesy and kindness 
 consistent with safe custody; if he has offended against the laws of war he should 
 .have such a trial, and be punished as the laws of war require. A spy, though a 
 prisoner of war, may be tried, condemned, and executed by a military tribunal without 
 a breach of the Constitution. A bushwhacker, a jayhawker, a bandit, a war rebel, an 
 assassin, being public enemies, may be tried, condemned, and executed as offenders 
 against the laws of war. 
 
 The soldier that would fail to try a spy or a bandit after his capture would be as 
 derelict in duty as if he were to fail to capture; he is as much bound to try and exe- 
 cute, if guilty, as he is to arrest; the same law that makes it his duty to pursue and 
 kill or capture makes it his duty to try according to the usages of war. The judge of 
 a civil court is not more strongly bound, under the Constitution and the law, to try a 
 criminal, than is the military to try an offender against the laws of war. The fact that 
 4he civil courts are open does not affect the right of the military tribunal to hold as a 
 prisoner and to try. The civil courts have no more right to prevent the military, in 
 time of war, from trying an offender against the laws of war than they have a right 
 to interfere and prevent a battle. A battle may be lawfully fought in the very presence 
 of the court; so a spy, a bandit, or other offender against the law of war, may be 
 tried, and tried lawfully, when and where the civil courts are open and transacting 
 business. The law of war authorizes human life to be taken without legal process; or 
 that legal process contemplated by those provisions of the Constitution that are relied 
 upon to show that military judicial tribunals are unconstitutional. 
 
 Wars should be prosecuted justly as well as bravely. One enemy in the power of 
 another, whether he be an open or a secret one, should not be punished or executed 
 without a trial. If the question be one concerning the laws of war, he should be tried 
 by those engaged in the war; they, and they only, are his peers. The military must 
 decide whether he is, or is not, an active participant in hostilities. If he is an active 
 participant in the hostilities it is the duty of the military to take him, without warrant 
 or other judicial process, and dispose of him as the laws of war direct. It is curious 
 to see one and the same mind justify the killing of thousands of men in battle because 
 it is done according to the laws of war, and yet condemning that same law when, out 
 of regard for justice, and with the hope of saving life, it orders a military trial before 
 the enemy are killed. The love of law, of justice, and the wish to save life and suffer- 
 ing should impel all good men in time of war to uphold and sustain the existence and 
 actions of such tribunals. The object of such tribunals is obviously intended to save 
 life, and when their jurisdiction is confined to offenses against the laws of war, that is 
 their effect. They prevent indiscriminate slaughter; they prevent men from being 
 punished or killed on mere suspicion. The law of nations, which is the result of the 
 wisdom and experience of ages, has decided that jayhawkers, banditti, etc., are 
 offenders against the laws of nature and of war, and as such amenable to the military. 
 Our Constitution has made those laws a part of the law of the land. Obedience to 
 the Constitution and the law, then, requires that the military should do their whole 
 duty; they must not only meet and fight the enemies of the country in open battle, 
 lmt they must kill or take the secret enemies of the country and try and execute them 
 according to the laws of war.
 
 94 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 The civil tribunals of the country cannot rightfully interfere with the military in the 
 performance of their high, arduous, and perilous but lawful duties. That Booth and 
 his associates were secret active public enemies no mind that contemplates the facts 
 can doubt. The exclamation used by him when he escaped from the box onto the 
 stage, after he fired the fatal shot, sic semper tyrannis, and his dying message, " Say 
 to my mother that I died for my country," show that he was not an assassin from 
 private malice, but that he acted as a public foe. Such a deed is expressly laid down 
 in Vattel, in his work on the law of nations, as an offense against the laws of war and a 
 great crime: " I give then the name of assassination to a treacherous murder, whether 
 the perpetrators of the deed be the subjects of the party whom we cause to be assas- 
 sinated or of our own sovereign, or that it be executed by any other emissary introducing 
 himself as a suppliant, a refugee, or a deserter, or in fine as a stranger " (Vattel, 339.) 
 Neither the civil nor the military department of the government should regard itself 
 as wiser and better than the Constitution and the laws that exist under or are made in 
 pursuance thereof. Each department should, in peace and in war, confining itself to- 
 ils own proper sphere of action, diligently and fearlessly perform its legitimate func- 
 tions, and in the mode prescribed by the Constitution and the law. Such obedience to 
 and observance of law will maintain peace when it exists, and will soonest relieve the 
 country from the abnormal state of war. 
 
 My conclusion, therefore, is, that if the persons who are charged with the assassina- 
 tion of the President committed the deed as public enemies, as I believe they did, and 
 whether they did or not is a question to be decided by the tribunal before which 
 they are tried, they not only can, but ought to be tried before a military tribunal. If 
 the persons charged have offended against the laws of war, it would be especially 
 wrong for the military to hand them over to the civil courts, as it would be wrong in a 
 civil court to convict a man of murder who had in time of war killed another in battle- 
 
 JAMES SPEED, 
 
 Attorney General. 
 
 The foregoing discussion of the constitutional aspects of the 
 question will no doubt be regarded by most people as somewhat 
 tedious, and perhaps outside of the legal profession will be read, 
 much less carefully studied, by but few. Yet by those who study 
 it, it will be found to be a most profound and masterly analysis of 
 the questions involved, viz., those of military and civil jusridiction 
 as provided for in the Constitution, and to fully justify the opinion 
 given as the conclusion of the argument. 
 
 We cannot too highly revere the Constitution, as it is that 
 which gives permanence, security, and prosperity to our national 
 life ; yet there is a power greater than the Constitution a power 
 that by authority expressed or understood reserves the right to 
 amend, alter, or abolish its provisions. That power is the 
 sovereignty that resides in the people. Self preservation is a
 
 QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE TRIAL. * 95 
 
 national, as much as an individual instinct, and self preservation is 
 the first law of nature. 
 
 A government that has a right to live has a right to the use of 
 all the means that may be found indispensable to the perpetuation 
 of its existence. When war comes the laws of war come with it 
 as a matter of necessity; because war, being an abnormal state of 
 society, brings with it conditions that render inoperative and use- 
 less the means provided for the safety and security of the life, 
 liberty, and property of the citizen, as guaranteed by the Consti- 
 tution and laws. These interests are too sacred to be left wholly 
 unprotected ; and so the civilized nations of the world have 
 adopted those rules which the wisdom and experience of mankind 
 have found necessary for their protection in time of war. These 
 rules, or laws, we denominate the laws of war. If the experience 
 of mankind should dictate modifications of, or additions to, those 
 rules for the better protection of these sacred interests of life, 
 liberty, and property, it would be as proper to amend these as it 
 is proper and competent to amend statute law, or to alter, amend, 
 or abolish constitutions. Such additions or alterations, if wisely 
 made, receive the sanction of mankind, and thus become a part of 
 the unwritten law, having in them the authority of this sanction. 
 
 In dealing with this question, however, it was not found neces- 
 sary that anything new should be devised, as the laws of war were 
 found to authorize all that was necessary to the adjudication of 
 the question, and to furnish the means and appliances for securing 
 the ends of justice. 
 
 The nature of the offense charged against these prisoners 
 placed them under the domain of martial law, as they were shown 
 by their own acts and declarations to be secret, active enemies of 
 the government, the purpose of their crime being to give aid to 
 the existing rebellion. For this reason the government left them 
 in the hands of the military to be dealt with according to the laws 
 of war ; and the President, being ex-officio Commander-in-Chief of 
 the army and navy, ordered the Assistant Adjutant General of the 
 army to detail a military commission, and send the accuse before 
 it for a speedy trial.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 A MILITARY COMMISSION ITS NATURE, CONSTITUTION, DUTIES, 
 AND JURISDICTION. 
 
 A MILITARY commission, as we have seen, is a judicial tribunal 
 authorized by and constituted under the laws of war during a 
 state of war. It consists of a definite number of commissioned 
 officers designated by the order of detail. Its jurisdiction is 
 limited, and its duties are also prescribed by that order. It is 
 a military court detailed to try offenders against the laws of war, 
 and clothed with power to decide both on the law and evidence in 
 the case, and to prescribe the punishment due to the offense. It 
 is constituted to act under a presiding officer, who is also desig- 
 nated in the order of detail. It has the assistance of a judge 
 advocate with whom it consults in regard to any questions of law 
 or of evidence that may arise. 
 
 The office of a judge advocate does not exactly correspond with 
 that of a states attorney in a civil court, for at the same time that 
 it is his duty to see that the case of the government and the evi- 
 dence are fairly presented, it is as much his duty to see that the 
 accused shall have a fair and impartial trial. The party on trial 
 has the right to have counsel of his own choice, and the govern- 
 ment must secure the attendance of such witnesses in his defense 
 as he may designate. The rules of law and of evidence are very 
 nearly the same as those which prevail in the civil courts. A mili- 
 tary commission combines, to a great extent, the functions of both 
 court and jury, as it has to decide on questions of law and evi- 
 dence as a court, and on the guilt or innocence of the accused, in 
 the light of law and evidence, as a jury. Again, in rendering a 
 sentence, in case of conviction, it exercises the functions of a court. 
 The oath taken by the members of the detail, and which constitutes 
 96
 
 A MILITARY COMMISSION. 97 
 
 it a court, requires them to diligently try the case and judge and 
 decide impartially, according to the -law and evidence. Thus it 
 will be seen that the rights of the accused are carefully guarded, 
 and every precaution taken to make it certain that justice shall be 
 done. This is the purpose as much in the constitution of a mili- 
 tary as of a civil court. The only object of its constitution is to 
 protect the innocent and condemn and punish the guilty, and thus 
 secure the ends of justice and mercy. It is a benign provision of 
 military law, and entitled to the highest respect and honor. Its 
 decisions and sentences, however, must have the approval of the 
 President of the United States to give them validity.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. 
 
 THE order of the President required the Assistant Adjutant 
 General of the army to detail nine competent military officers to 
 serve as a commission for the trial of the parties in custody, and 
 also that the Judge Advocate General should proceed to prefer 
 charges against them for their alleged offenses, and bring them to 
 trial before the Commission, under the conduct of the Judge Advo- 
 cate General as the recorder thereof, in person, and assisted by 
 such assistant, or special judge advocates as he might select, and 
 that the trial should be conducted with all diligence, consistent 
 with the ends of justice. Brevet Major General Hartranft was 
 assigned to duty, by the President's order, as Special Provost 
 Martial General for the occasion. The following officers were 
 designated by the Assistant Adjutant General as the detail for the 
 court: 
 
 Major General David H. Hunter, U.S.V., to preside over the 
 Commission. 
 
 Major General Lewis Wallace, U.S.V. 
 
 Brevet Major General August V. Kautz, U.S.V. 
 
 Brigadier General Albion P. Howe, U.S.V. 
 
 Brigadier General Robert S. Foster, U.S.V. 
 
 Brevet Brigadier General Cyrus Comstock, U.S.V. 
 
 Brigadier General T. M. Harris, U.S.V. 
 
 Brevet Colonel Horace Porter, Aide-de-Camp. 
 
 Lieutenant Colonel David R. Clendennin, Eighth Illinois Cavalry. 
 
 Brigadier General Joseph Holt, Judge Advocate General United 
 States Army, Judge Advocate and Recorder of the Commission, 
 aided by such special or assistant judge advocates as he might 
 designate. 
 
 98
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. 99 
 
 The details for the Commission were made on the 6th of May, 
 1865, and it was ordered to meet at Washington City on the 8th 
 of May, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Commission held 
 its first meeting on the 9th of May, at ten o'clock A.M., all the 
 members being present, also the Judge Advocate General. 
 
 The Hon. John A. Bingham, and Brevet Colonel H. L. Burnett, 
 Judge Advocate, were introduced by the Judge Advocate General 
 as assistant or special judge advocates. The accused, David E. 
 Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Samuel Arnold, Lewis Payne, 
 Michael O'Laughlin, Edward Spangler, Mary E. Surratt, and 
 Samuel A. Mudd were brought into court, and being asked 
 whether they desired to employ counsel replied in the affirma- 
 tive. To afford them an opportunity to do so, the court adjourned 
 to meet on the loth day of May, at ten o'clock A.M. At the 
 assembling of the court on the zoth, the Judge Advocate read a 
 special order from the Assistant Adjutant General, E. D. Townsend, 
 relieving General Comstock and Brevet Colonel Porter from service 
 on the Commission, and substituting for them Brevet Brigadier 
 General James A. Ekin, U. S. V., and Brevet Colonel C. H. 
 Tompkins, U. S. A. 
 
 All the members being present, the Commission proceeded to 
 the trial of the parties accused as above named, who were brought 
 into court, and having the order detailing the Commission read to 
 them, they were asked if they had any objection to any member 
 named therein, to which they all replied, severally, that they had 
 not. The members of the Commission were then duly sworn by 
 the Judge Advocate General in the presence of the accused. The 
 Judge Advocate General and the assistant judge advocates were 
 then duly sworn by the president of the court in the presence of 
 the accused. 
 
 Ben Pittman, R. Sutton, D. F. Murphy, R. R. Hitt, J. J. 
 Murphy, and Edward V. Murphy were sworn by the Judge 
 Advocate General, in the presence of the accused, as reporters to 
 the Commission. The accused were then severally arraigned on 
 the following charge and specifications :
 
 IOO ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Charge and Specifications against David E. Herald, George A. 
 Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Michael O'Laughlin, Edward Spangler, 
 Samuel Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd. 
 
 Charge. For maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously, and in 
 aid of the existing armed rebellion against the United States of 
 America, on or before the 6th day of March, A.D. 1865, and on 
 divers other days between that day and the I5th day of April, A.D. 
 1865, combining, confederating, and conspiring together with one 
 John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth, Jefferson Davis, George N. 
 Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, 
 Clement C. Clay. George Harper, George Young, and others un- 
 known, to kill and murder within the military department of 
 Washington, and within the fortified and intrenched lines thereof, 
 Abraham Lincoln, late, at the time of said combining, confederat- 
 ing, and conspiring President of the United States of America and 
 Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy thereof; Andrew 
 Johnson, now Vice-President of the United States aforesaid ; Wil- 
 liam H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States aforesaid ; 
 and Ulysses S. Grant, Lieutenant General of the army of the United 
 States aforesaid, then in command of the armies of the United 
 States under the direction of the said Abraham Lincoln ; and in 
 pursuance of, and in prosecuting said malicious, unlawful, and 
 traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and in aid of said rebellion, after- 
 wards, to wit, on the I4th day of April, A.D. 1865, within the 
 military department at Washington aforesaid, and within the 
 fortified and intrenched lines of said military department, together 
 with said John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt, maliciously, 
 unlawfully, and traitorously murdering the said Abraham Lincoln, 
 then President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of 
 the army and navy of the United States as aforesaid ; and mali- 
 ciously, unlawfully, and traitorously assaulting with intent to kill 
 and murder the said William H. Seward, then Secretary of State 
 of the United States as aforesaid ; and lying in wait with intent 
 maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously to kill and murder Andrew 
 Johnson, then being Vice-President of the United States ; and the 
 said Ulysses S. Grant, then being Lieutenant General, and in com- 
 mand of the armies of the United States as aforesaid.
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. \Q\ 
 
 Specifications. In this, that they, the said David E. Herold, 
 Edward Spangler, Lewis Payne, Michael O'Laughlin, Samuel 
 Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, George A. Atzerodt, and Samuel A. Mudd, 
 together with the said John H. Surratt and John Wilkes Booth, 
 incited and encouraged thereunto by Jefferson Davis, George N. 
 Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, 
 Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and others un- 
 known, citizens of the United States aforesaid, and who were then 
 engaged in armed rebellion against the United States of America, 
 within the limits thereof, did, in aid of said armed rebellion, on or 
 before the 6th day of March, A.D. 1865, and on divers other days 
 and times between that day and the I5th day of April, A.D. 
 1865, combine, confederate, and conspire together at Washington 
 City, within the military department of Washington, and within the 
 intrenched fortifications and military lines of the said United States, 
 there being unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously to kill and 
 murder Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States 
 aforesaid, and Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy thereof; 
 and unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously to kill and murder 
 Andrew Johnson, now Vice-President of the said United States, 
 upon whom, on the death of the said Abraham Lincoln, after the 4th 
 day of March, A.D. 1865, the office of President of the said United 
 States and Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy thereof 
 would devolve ; and to unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously 
 kill and murder Ulysses S. Grant, then Lieutenant General, and 
 under the direction of Abraham Lincoln, in command of the armies 
 of the United States aforesaid ; and unlawfully, maliciously, and 
 traitorously to kill and murder William H. Seward, then Secretary of 
 State of the United States aforesaid, whose duty it was by law, 
 upon the death of the said President and Vice-President of the 
 United States aforesaid, to cause an election to be held for electors 
 of President of the United States ; the conspirators aforesaid, 
 designing and intending by the killing and murder of the said 
 Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, and 
 William H. Seward, as aforesaid, to deprive the army and navy of 
 the said United States of a constitutional commander-in-chief ; and 
 to deprive the armies of the United States of their lawful com-
 
 102 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 mander ; and to prevent a lawful election of President and Vice- 
 President of the United States aforesaid ; and by the means afore- 
 said to aid and comfort the insurgents engaged in armed rebellion 
 against the said United States as aforesaid, and thereby to aid in 
 the subversion and overthrow of the Constitution and laws of the 
 said United States. 
 
 And being so combined, confederated and conspiring together 
 in the prosecution of said unlawful and traitorous conspiracy, on 
 the night of the I4th day of April, A.D. 1865, at the hour of 
 about ten o'clock and fifteen minutes P.M., at Ford's Theatre on 
 Tenth Street, in the City of Washington, and within the military 
 department and military lines aforesaid, John Wilkes Booth, one of 
 the conspirators aforesaid, in pursuance of said unlawful and trai- 
 torous conspiracy, did then and there unlawfully, maliciously, 
 and traitorously, and with intent to kill and murder the said 
 Abraham Lincoln, discharge a pistol then held in the hands of 
 him, the said John Wilkes Booth, the same being then loaded with 
 powder and a leaden ball, against and upon the left and posterior 
 side of the head of the said Abraham Lincoln ; and did thereby 
 then and there inflict upon him, the said Abraham Lincoln, then 
 President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the 
 army and navy thereof, a mortal wound whereof afterwards, to wit, 
 on the 1 5th day of April, A.D. 1865, at Washington City aforesaid, 
 the said Abraham Lincoln died ; and thereby, then and there, and 
 in pursuance of said conspiracy, the said defendants, and the said 
 John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt did, unlawfully, traitor- 
 ously and maliciously, and with intent to aid the rebellion as afore- 
 said, kill and murder the said Abraham Lincoln, President of the 
 United States, as aforesaid. And in further prosecution of the 
 unlawful, and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and of the murder- 
 ous and traitorous intent of said conspiracy, the said Edward 
 Spangler, on the said I4th day of April, A.D. 1865, at about the 
 same hour of that day as aforesaid, within the said military 
 department and military lines aforesaid, did aid and assist the 
 said John Wilkes Booth to obtain entrance to the box in the said 
 theatre, in which said Abraham Lincoln was sitting at the time he 
 was assaulted and shot as aforesaid by John Wilkes Booth ; and
 
 CONSTITUTION Of-' THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. 103 
 
 also did, then and there, aid said Booth in barring and obstructing 
 the door of the box of said theatre, so as to hinder and prevent 
 any assistance to, or rescue of, the said Abraham Lincoln against 
 the murderous assault of the said John Wilkes Booth ; and did 
 aid and abet him in making his escape after the said Abraham 
 Lincoln had been murdered in manner aforesaid. 
 
 And in further prosecution of said unlawful, murderous, and 
 traitorous conspiracy, and in pursuance thereof, and with the 
 intent as aforesaid, the said David E. Herold did, on the night 
 of the 1 4th day of April, A.D. 1865, within the military depart- 
 ment and military lines aforesaid, aid, abet, and assist the said 
 John Wilkes Booth in the killing and murder of the said Abraham 
 Lincoln, and did, then and there, aid, abet, and assist him, the 
 said John Wilkes Booth, in attempting to escape through the mili- 
 tary lines aforesaid, and did accompany and assist the said John 
 Wilkes Booth in attempting to conceal himself and escape from 
 justice . after killing and murdering said Abraham Lincoln as 
 aforesaid. 
 
 And in further prosecution of said unlawful and traitorous con- 
 spiracy, and of the intent thereof, as aforesaid, the said Lewis 
 Payne did, on the same night of the I4th day of April, A.D. 
 1865, about the same hour of ten o'clock and fifteen minutes 
 P.M., at the city of Washington, and within the military depart- 
 ment and military lines aforesaid, unlawfully and maliciously make 
 an assault upon the said William H. Seward, Secretary of State, 
 as aforesaid, in the dwelling house and bed-chamber of him, the 
 said William H. Seward, and the said Payne did, then and there, 
 with a large knife held in his hand, unlawfully, traitorously, and in 
 pursuance of said conspiracy, strike, stab, cut, and attempt to kill 
 and murder the said William H. Seward, and did thereby, then 
 and there, and with the intent aforesaid, with said knife inflict 
 upon the face and throat of the said William H. Seward divers 
 grievous wounds. And the said Lewis Payne, in further prosecu- 
 tion of said conspiracy, at the same time and place last aforesaid, 
 did attempt, with the knife aforesaid, and a pistol held in his hand, 
 to kill and murder Frederick W. Seward, Augustus H. Seward, 
 Emrick W. Hansel and George F. Robinson, who were striving to
 
 104 ASSASS/NATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 protect and rescue the said William H. Seward from murder by 
 the said Lewis Payne, and did, then and there, with said knife and 
 pistol held in his hands, inflict upon the head of the said Frederick 
 W. Seward, and upon the persons of said Augustus H. Seward, 
 Emrick W. Hansel, and George F. Robinson, divers grievous and 
 dangerous wounds, with intent then and there to kill and murder 
 the said Frederick W. Seward, Augustus H. Seward, Emrick W. 
 Hansel, and George F. Robinson. 
 
 And in further prosecution of said conspiracy and its traitorous 
 and murderous designs, the said George A. Atzerodt did, on the 
 night of the I4th of April, A.D. 1865, and about the same hour of 
 the night aforesaid, within the military department and military 
 lines aforesaid, lie in wait for Andrew Johnson, then Vice-President 
 of the United States aforesaid, with the intent unlawfully and mali- 
 ciously to kill and murder him, the said Andrew Johnson. 
 
 And in further prosecution of the conspiracy aforesaid, and of 
 its murderous and treasonable purposes aforesaid, on the nights of 
 the 1 3th and I4th of April, A.D. 1865, at Washington City, and 
 within the military department and military lines aforesaid, the 
 said Michael O'Laughlin did, then and there, lie in wait for 
 Ulysses S. Grant, then lieutenant general and commander of the 
 armies of the United States as aforesaid, with intent then and there 
 to kill and murder the said Ulysses S. Grant. 
 
 And in further prosecution of said conspiracy, the said Samuel 
 Arnold did, within the military department and the military lines 
 aforesaid, on or before the 6th day of March, A.D. 1865, and on 
 divers other days and times between that day and the I5th day of 
 April, A.D. 1865, combine, conspire with, and aid, counsel, abet, 
 comfort, and support the said John Wilkes Booth, Lewis Payne, 
 George A. Atzerodt, Michael O'Laughlin, and their confederates 
 in said unlawful, murderous and traitorous conspiracy, and in the 
 execution thereof aforesaid. 
 
 And in further prosecution of said conspiracy, Mary E. Surratt 
 did, at Washington City and within the military department and 
 military lines aforesaid, on or before the 6th day of March, A.D. 
 1865, and on divers other days and times between that day and 
 the 2Oth day of April, A.D. 1865, receive, entertain, harbor, and
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. 105 
 
 conceal, aid and assist the said John Wilkes Booth, David E. 
 Herold, Lewis Payne, John H. Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, 
 George A. Atzerodt, Samuel Arnold, and their confederates, with 
 knowledge of the murderous and traitorous conspiracy afore- 
 said, and with the intent to aid, abet, and assist them in the execu- 
 tion thereof, and in escaping from justice after the murder of the 
 said Abraham Lincoln as aforesaid. 
 
 And in further prosecution of said conspiracy the said Samuel 
 A. Mudd did at Washington City and within the military depart- 
 ment and military lines aforesaid, on or before the 6th day of 
 March, A. D. 1865, and on divers other days and times between 
 that day and the 2Oth day of April, A.D. 1865, advise, encourage, 
 receive, entertain, harbor and conceal, aid and assist the said John 
 Wilkes Booth, David E. Herold, Lewis Payne, John H. Surratt, 
 Michael O'Laughlin, George A. Atzerodt, Mary E. Surratt, and 
 Samuel Arnold, and their confederates, with knowledge of the 
 murderous and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and with the intent 
 to aid, abet, and assist them in the execution thereof and in escaping 
 from justice after the murder of the said Abraham Lincoln, in pur- 
 suance of said conspiracy in manner aforesaid. By order of the 
 President of the United States. 
 
 J. HOLT, 
 
 Judge Advocate Getter al. 
 
 / 
 
 Charge and Specifications Indorsed. 
 
 " Copy of the within charge and specification delivered to 
 David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Edward 
 Spangler, Michael O'Laughlin, Samuel Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, 
 and Samuel A. Mudd, on the 8th day of May, 1865. 
 
 [Signed] " J. F. HARTRANFT, 
 
 " Brevet Major General and 
 Special Provost Marshal General." 
 
 The accused severally plead as follows : 
 To the specification, " Not guilty." 
 To the charge, " Not guilty."
 
 IO6 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 The Commission then proceeded to consider the rules and 
 regulations by which its proceedings should be governed or con- 
 ducted. The prisoners were served, as we have seen, with a due 
 notice of the offenses with which they were charged, and required 
 to be confronted with the witnesses against them. They were 
 allowed the benefit of counsel of their own choice and compulsory 
 attendance of witnesses in their defense. In short, they were 
 accorded every condition that was necessary to a fair and impar- 
 tial trial. In this case the only qualification required of the 
 counsel selected or employed by the accused in their defense was, 
 that they should submit or file evidence of having taken the oath 
 required by an act of Congress, or should take said oath before 
 being permitted to appear in the case. 
 
 The examination of witnesses was conducted on the part of the gov- 
 ernment by the Judge Advocate and by counsel on the part of the 
 accused. The evidence was taken down by short-hand reporters who 
 'were sworn to record the evidence faithfully and truly, and not to 
 communicate the same, or any part of the proceedings on the trial, 
 except by authority of the presiding officer. They were required 
 to furnish a copy of the evidence taken each day to the Judge 
 Advocate, and also a copy to prisoners' counsel. No reporters 
 except the official reporters were allowed access to the court- 
 room. The Judge Advocate, however, was allowed to furnish to 
 the agent of the Associated Press, at his discretion, a copy of such 
 testimony and proceedings as might be published during the trial 
 without injury to the public and to the ends of justice. All other 
 publication of the evidence and of the proceedings during the trial 
 was forbidden, and was to be dealt with as a contempt of court. 
 The testimony being closed, the case was to be immediately 
 summed up by one judge advocate, selected by the Judge Advo- 
 cate General, to be followed or opened, if the Judge Advocate 
 General so selected, by counsel for the prisoners, and the argument 
 closed by one judge advocate. 
 
 The argument being closed, the court was to proceed immedi- 
 ately to deliberate and make its determination. The provost 
 marshal was required to have the prisoners present during the 
 trial, and was held responsible for their safe keeping. Their
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. 107 
 
 counsel was permitted to hold communication with them in the 
 presence, but not in the hearing, of the guard. Counsel for the 
 prisoners were required to furnish immediately a list of witnesses 
 required for the defense of their respective clients to the Judge 
 Advocate General, who procured their attendance in the usual 
 manner. At the meeting of the Commission on May the nth, 
 Samuel A. Mudd asked permission to introduce Frederick Stone, 
 Esq., and Thomas Ewing, Jr., Esq., as his counsel. Mary E. 
 Surratt asked to introduce Frederick Aiken, Esq., and John W. 
 Clampitt, Esq., as her counsel, which applications were granted 
 by the court. At its meeting on May I2th, David E. Herold 
 asked to introduce Frederick Stone, Esq., as his counsel; Samuel 
 Arnold asked to introduce Thomas Ewing, Jr., Esq., as his 
 counsel; George A. Atzerodt asked to introduce William E. 
 Doster, Esq., as his counsel ; Michael O'Laughlin applied for 
 permission to introduce Walter S. Cox, Esq., as his counsel ; 
 Lewis Payne asked to introduce William E. Doster, Esq., as his 
 counsel ; Edward Spangler applied for permission to introduce 
 Thomas Ewing, Jr., Esq., as his counsel ; which applications were 
 granted, and Messrs. Doster and Cox, having first taken the oath 
 prescribed by act of Congress approved July 2d, 1862, in open 
 court, appeared accordingly. The accused, Mary E. Surratt, 
 applied for permission to introduce Hon. Reverdy Johnson as 
 additional counsel for her, and permission being granted, he ap- 
 peared accordingly. The admission of Mr. Johnson was objected 
 to by the author, a member of the court, on the ground that he 
 had very light views of the obligations of an oath, and in proof of 
 this, reference was made to an open letter to the people of Mary- 
 land, written a few months previously by the honorable gentleman, 
 in which he advised them to take the oath prescribed by the late 
 Constitutional Convention of that State as a qualification for the 
 exercise of the right of suffrage in the adoption or rejection of the 
 amended Constitution, in which letter he took the ground that as 
 the convention had transcended its power in prescribing such an 
 oath, which in effect was intended to exclude all disloyal persons 
 from participation in this right of citizenship, it carried in it no 
 moral obligation ; and that they might therefore take it as a
 
 IO8 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 matter of indifference, even though they were disloyal. The hon- 
 orable gentleman at first treated this objection to his appearance 
 with great Jiauteur of manner, and appeared to be astonished that 
 an obscure officer in the army, whom nobody knew, should pre- 
 sume to arraign a man in his position as incompetent to appear 
 before such a court. He was answered by the president of the 
 Commission, who said, that had not General Harris raised this 
 objection he had intended doing so himself. The honorable 
 gentleman, seeing that there was danger of his exclusion from the 
 court, and that it could not be bluffed, immediately came down 
 from his high horse, and in a very respectful manner entered into 
 a lengthy explanation of the letter referred to, which explanation 
 did not put a better face on the matter, but as he in closing em- 
 phatically declared that he did recognize the moral obligation of 
 an oath, the objection was withdrawn, and he was admitted and 
 appeared accordingly. The accused severally then asked, for the 
 time, to withdraw their plea of " Not guilty," heretofore filed, so 
 that they might plead to the jurisdiction of the court. 
 
 This being granted, they offered the following plea to the juris- 
 diction of the court : 
 
 " , one of the accused, for plea says that this court 
 
 has no jurisdiction in the proceedings against him, because he says 
 he is not, and has not been, in the military service of the United 
 States. 
 
 "And for further plea, the said says that loyal civil 
 
 courts, in which all the offenses charged are triable, exist, 
 and are in full and free operation in all the places where the 
 several offenses charged are alleged to have been committed. 
 
 "And for further plea, the said says that the court has 
 
 no jurisdiction in the matter of the alleged conspiracy, so far as it 
 is charged to have been a conspiracy to murder Abraham Lincoln, 
 late President of the United States, and William H. Seward, Secre- 
 tary of State, because he says said alleged conspiracy, and all acts 
 alleged to have been done in the formation and in the execution 
 thereof, are in the charge and specifications alleged to have been 
 committed in the City of Washington, in which city are loyal civil 
 courts in full operation, in which all said offenses charged are 
 triable.
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. 109 
 
 "And the said for further plea says this court has no 
 
 jurisdiction in the matter of the crime of murdering Abraham 
 Lincoln, late President of the United States, and William H. 
 Seward, Secretary of State, because he says said crimes and acts 
 done in execution thereof are, in the charge and specifications, 
 alleged to have been committed in the City of Washington, in 
 which city are loyal civil courts, in full operation, in which said 
 crimes are triable." 
 
 In answer to this plea the judge advocate presented the follow- 
 ing replication : 
 
 " Now come the United States, and for answer to the special 
 
 plea by one of the defendants, , plead to the jurisdiction 
 
 of the Commission in this case, say that this Commission has 
 jurisdiction in the premises to try and determine the matters in 
 the charge and specifications alleged and set forth against the 
 
 said defendant, . 
 
 "J. HOLT, 
 " Judge Advocate General'' 
 
 The court was then cleared for deliberation, and on being re- 
 opened the Judge Advocate announced that the pleas of the 
 accused had been overruled by the Commission. The accused 
 then made application for severance as follows : 
 
 " , one of the accused, asks that he be tried separate 
 
 from those who are charged with him, for the reason that he 
 believes his defense will be greatly prejudiced by a joint trial." 
 
 The Commission overruled the application for severance. The 
 accused then severally plead : 
 
 To the specifications, " Not guilty." 
 
 To the charge, " Not guilty." 
 
 The considerations on which the motion for severance was over- 
 ruled were, that the charge alleged a conspiracy on the part of 
 the persons accused and on trial, with others unknown, unlawfully, 
 maliciously, and traitorously to kill and murder the President and 
 others. The fact of entering into a conspiracy to do unlawful acts 
 gives to the associated body, in law, an individuality ; personality
 
 HO ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 is merged in the common purpose of those thus combining them- 
 selves together, and so the declaration or act of any one of them, 
 touching the accomplishment of the common purpose, becomes 
 the declaration or act of all. The guilt is equally shared by all. 
 If the government could not sustain the charge of a conspiracy, 
 then none of the accused could be found guilty of entering into a 
 conspiracy as alleged. The fact of a conspiracy being established, 
 it only remained to be shown in each case that the accused was a 
 member of it ; proving this, he would be held to be a sharer in 
 the guilt, although not present at the commission of the crime ; but 
 failing to establish the fact of his belonging to the conspiracy, his 
 innocence must be legally admitted. In other words he could not 
 be found guilty. There can in law be no severance of an individu- 
 ality; and so the application for a separate trial was denied, or 
 overruled. 
 
 On the demurrer to the jurisdiction of the court, the Commis- 
 sion held that it could not admit this to be a question that it could 
 properly take under its consideration. To the executive depart- 
 ment of the government alone belonged the decision of this ques- 
 tion as to the kind of trial that the accused should have ; and the 
 President, after maturely considering it in the light of the Consti- 
 tution and the related facts, and after having submitted it to his 
 Attorney General for his opinion, accepting that opinion as the cor- 
 rect conclusion of his very exhaustive argument, embracing all 
 the Constitutional questions involved, had determined that these 
 parties were offenders against the laws of war, as their offense 
 was the act of secret, active participants in the existing hostilities, 
 and committed with a deep political intent, the purpose of which 
 was to give aid to the existing rebellion, and so, justly, under the 
 Constitution, subjecting them to law martial, and trial by a mili- 
 tary commission. The President, being cx-ojficio Commander-in- 
 Chief of the armies of the United States, had the right to order a 
 detail of officers to constitute such court, and by order to specify 
 the duties required of them. Their duty as officers of the army 
 required of them simply obedience to the orders of the President 
 of the United States and to those over them in the organization of 
 the military arm of the government. To this they were bound by
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. \ \ \ 
 
 the solemn obligations of their official oath. To have entertained 
 this question would have been an act of disobedience, subjecting 
 them to discipline ; to have refused to serve would have been an 
 act of mutiny. The officers composing this court were, accord- 
 ing to the biographers of President Lincoln (Nicolay and Hay) 
 " not only officers high in rank, but of unusual weight of charac- 
 ter"; they had been thoroughly schooled in military discipline, 
 and so recognized the duty of obedience to orders as the first duty 
 of a soldier. It was not any part of their duty to discuss the wis- 
 dom, propriety, or legality of an order before entering upon the 
 act of obedience. Their duty was simply to obey, and for this 
 they were properly held responsible. The order of detail assigned 
 to them the specific duty of trying the accused under the charge 
 and specifications prepared against them by the government, and 
 so, as loyal, obedient soldiers, loving their country and having 
 faith in its government, they had nothing to do but to enter upon 
 and discharge the duties for which they had been detailed. 
 
 As before stated, the Hon. Reverdy Johnson, a United States 
 Senator from Maryland, volunteered to defend Mrs. Mary E. 
 Surratt, selecting her for his client that he might have the benefit, 
 for the purpose of his argument, of the sympathy which we all 
 naturally feel for her sex. It was not his purpose to defend her 
 any more than any other one or all of the prisoners, as he 
 addressed himself simply to the task of arguing the question of 
 jurisdiction. His real object was, evidently, to get himself before 
 the Commission, that he might arraign the martyred President before 
 the country and before the world, and denounce his acts for the 
 prosecution of the war as unconstitutional and tyrannical usurpa- 
 tions of power. He made a lengthy, and from the stand-point 
 of the right of secession, able argument against the right to try 
 these cases before a military tribunal. The Commission was made 
 up largely of men sufficiently versed in constitutional law, as well 
 as the laws of nations and of war, to be little influenced by his 
 sophistries. Their position towards the government on these ques- 
 tions had placed them where they were, as officers in its military 
 service, and they could not be swerved from the loyal discharge of 
 their duty. The reply of the Hon. John A. Bingham to the sophis-
 
 112 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 tries of the honorable senator, is a masterpiece of logical reason- 
 ing, as also of forensic eloquence and legal acumen, and will well 
 repay the careful study, not only of every student of law, but of 
 every young man who has an ambition to become intelligent in 
 matters of public interest, involving the rights, duties, and priv- 
 ileges of the citizen in time of peace and in time of war. 
 
 It will be found not only thoroughly learned and exhaustive of 
 all questions involved, as a legal argument, but also the very 
 embodiment of patriotic devotion to our free institutions of 
 government, and to the cause of civil liberty, justice, humanity, 
 and moral progress. 
 
 The Commission was diligently engaged in the trial of the 
 prisoners from the iith day of May until the 3Oth day of June, 
 a period of about seven weeks being consumed in hearing the testi- 
 mony and the motions and arguments of counsel. As I have 
 given, in narrative form, the facts proven against each of the 
 accused, as they stood unimpeached and uncontroverted by testi- 
 mony given in defense, in giving the history of their arrest, it is 
 unnecessary that I should give it formally, as it appears upon the 
 record of the trial. 
 
 After maturely deliberating on the evidence adduced in the case 
 of each of the accused, the findings of the Commission were as 
 follows : 
 
 In the case of David E. Herold : Of the specification guilty ; 
 except " combining, confederating, and conspiring with Edward 
 Spangler," as to which part thereof not guilty. Of the charge 
 guilty; except the words of the charge, "combining, confederat- 
 ing, and conspiring with Edward Spangler," as to which not guilty. 
 And the Commission did, therefore, sentence him, the said David 
 E. Herold, to be hanged by the neck until he be dead, at such time 
 and place as the President of the United States should direct, two- 
 thirds of the Commission concurring therein. 
 
 In the case of George A. Atzerodt: After mature considera- 
 
 o 
 
 tion of the evidence adduced, the Commission found the accused, 
 of the specification guilty; except " combining, confederating, and 
 conspiring with Edward Spangler," of this not guilty. Of the 
 charge guilty; except "combining, confederating, and conspiring
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. 113 
 
 with Edward Spangler," of this not guilty. And the sentence of 
 the Commission was that he be hanged by the neck until he be 
 dead, at such time and place as the President of the United States 
 might direct, two-thirds of the Commission concurring therein. 
 
 In the case of Lewis Payne, the Commission found him, of the 
 specifications guilty; of the charge guilty; with the same excep- 
 tions as in the case of Atzerodt ; and sentenced him to be hung as 
 above, two-thirds of the Commission concurring therein. 
 
 In the case of Mary E. Surratt, the Commission found her, of 
 the specifications guilty, and of the charge guilty ; except as to 
 "receiving, sustaining, harboring, and concealing Samuel Arnold 
 and Michael O'Laughlin " ; and except as to " combining, con- 
 federating, and conspiring with Edward Spangler," and of this not 
 guilty ; and sentenced her to be hanged by the neck until she be 
 dead, at such time 'and place as the President of the United States 
 should direct, two-thirds of the Commission concurring therein. 
 
 In the case of Michael O'Laughlin, the Commission found him 
 guilty of the specifications, except the words thereof, " And in 
 further prosecution of the conspiracy aforesaid, and of its 
 murderous and treasonable purposes aforesaid, on the night of the 
 1 3th of April, A.D. 1865, at Washington City, and within the mili- 
 tary department and military lines aforesaid, the said Michael 
 O'Laughlin did, then and there, lie in wait for Ulysses S. Grant, 
 then Lieutenant General and commander of the armies of the 
 United States, with intent, then and there, to kill and murder the 
 said Ulysses S. Grant " ; of said words not guilty. Of the charge 
 guilty, except " combining, confederating, and conspiring with 
 Edward Spangler"; of this not guilty. O'Laughlin was sentenced 
 by the Commission to be imprisoned at hard labor for life, at such 
 place as the President might direct, two-thirds of the Commission 
 concurring therein. In the case of Edward Spangler, the Com- 
 mission found him guilty of the charge and specifications, with 
 exceptions similar to the above, and sentenced him to be 
 imprisoned at hard labor for the term of six years, at such place 
 as the President might direct, two-thirds concurring therein. 
 
 In the case of Samuel Arnold, the decision of the Commission 
 was, that he was guilty of the charge and specifications, with
 
 114 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 exceptions similar to the above, and that he should be imprisoned 
 for life at hard labor at such place as the President should direct, 
 two-thirds concurring. 
 
 In the case of Samuel A. Mudd, the Commission found him 
 guilty of the charge and specifications, with similar exceptions, as 
 the evidence required, and sentenced him to be imprisoned at 
 hard labor for life, as above. 
 
 The findings and sentences of the Commission were approved by 
 the President, and those of the accused who were sentenced to im- 
 prisonment at hard labor were ordered by him to be sent to the 
 military prison at the Dry Tortugas, and they were transported 
 there accordingly. 
 
 In the case of those who were sentenced to death, the President 
 ordered their execution to take place on the /th day of July, one 
 week after they were convicted and sentenced by the court, and 
 they were accordingly executed. 
 
 After the conviction and sentence of Mrs. Surratt, Judge 
 Bingham, at the request of a member of the court, drew up the 
 following petition: "To the President: The undersigned, members 
 of the military commission appointed to try the persons charged 
 with the murder of Abraham Lincoln, etc., respectfully represent 
 that the Commission have been constrained to find Mary E. 
 Surratt guilty upon the testimony of the assassination of Abraham 
 Lincoln, late President of the United States, and to pronounce 
 upon her, as required by law, the sentence of death ; but in con- 
 sideration of her age and sex, the undersigned pray your Excel- 
 lency, if it is consistent with your sense of duty, to commute her 
 sentence to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary." 
 
 This petition was signed by five members (a majority) of the 
 court, and although not constituting a part of the record, was pre- 
 sented along with the record by the Judge Advocate General to 
 the President. The record was carefully considered and discussed 
 by the President and a full cabinet, when, without a dissenting 
 voice, the sentences of the Commission were confirmed, and the 
 prayer of the petition was rejected. 
 
 Mrs. Surratt's counsel then sued out a writ of habeas corpus to 
 take her out of the hands of the military authorities, and thus to
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COAfMISSION, AND TRIAL. \ \ 5 
 
 secure for her a civil trial, or perhaps an entire release, after the 
 President had approved the findings and sentence of the court. 
 
 The President had set the 7th day of July, 1865, as the day for 
 the execution of those who had been sentenced to death, and had 
 given orders accordingly to the military officer under whose 
 charge they had been placed. On the forenoon of that day, on 
 the application of Mrs. Surratt's counsel, Judge Wylie, of the 
 Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, endorsed on her 
 application : 
 
 " Let the writ issue as prayed, returnable before the criminal court of the District of 
 Columbia, now sitting at the hour of ten o'clock A.M., this 7th day of July, 1865. 
 
 [Signed] "ANDREW WYLIE, 
 
 " A Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. 
 "July ;th, 1865." 
 
 This writ was served on General Hancock, who had custody of, 
 and was charged with the execution of the prisoners, and who, 
 accompanied by Attorney General Speed, appeared before Judge 
 Wylie in obedience to the writ, on which the following return was 
 
 made : 
 
 HEADQUARTERS MIDDLE MILITARY DIVISION, 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., July 7th, 1865. 
 
 To Hon. ANDREW WYLIE, Justice of the Supreme Court of tJie District of Columbia : 
 
 I hereby acknowledge the service of the writ hereto attached and return the same, 
 and respectfully say that the body of Mary E. Surratt is in my possession under and by 
 virtue of an order of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and Commander- 
 in-Chief of the army and navy, for the purposes in said order expressed, a copy of 
 which is hereto attached and made part of this return ; and that I do not produce said 
 body by reason of the order of the President of the United States, indorsed upon said 
 writ, to which reference is hereby respectfully made, dated July 7th, 1865. 
 
 The order of the President, made a part of the above return, is 
 
 as follows : 
 
 EXECUTIVE OFFICE, July 7th, 1865, 10 o'clock A.M. 
 
 To Major General W. S. HANCOCK, Commander, etc.: 
 
 I, ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States, do hereby declare that the 
 writ of habeas corptis has been heretofore suspended in such cases as this, and I do 
 hereby especially suspend this writ, and direct that you proceed to execute the order 
 heretofore given upon the judgment of the military commission, and you will give this 
 order in return to the writ. 
 
 ANDREW JOHNSON, President.
 
 I 1 6 ASSASSINA TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 The court ruled that it yielded to the suspension of the writ of 
 habeas corpus by the President of the United States. 
 
 Thus ended the contest over the jurisdiction of the military 
 commission. It has never been revived with success and never 
 will be, as the sound sense of every patriotic American, whose 
 heart beats true to the cause of liberty, justice, good morals, and 
 good government, rests on the arguments that determined this 
 trial by a military commission as its sanction, both by our inimita- 
 ble Constitution and by the laws of war. In the light of these 
 arguments, this trial will ever hereafter have the authority of a 
 precedent, should another crisis arise involving the principles on 
 which it rests. It was only those whose sympathies were with the 
 rebellion who demurred to it at the time, and whose yelp is 
 occasionally heard, even at this late day, but on a very cold trail. 
 
 The sentence of the Commission was executed on the /th day of 
 July, 1865, in accordance with the President's order, by General 
 Hancock, in the yard of the old Capitol prison. Thus the trial 
 and the execution were alike at the hands of the military; and 
 thus the authority and justice of the government were vindicated, 
 and a solemn warning was given to all traitors to desist from 
 schemes of assassination ; a warning which, as we shall yet see, 
 taught them a salutary lesson, and in some measure brought them 
 to their senses. 
 
 We shall now turn our attention to the persons just now referred 
 to, some of whom were known, but many were unknown. Before 
 doing this, however, it seems due to our history at this point to 
 say a word about Booth's co-conspirator, John H. Surratt, who 
 would seem to have dropped out of sight in the narrative I have 
 given of the arrest and trial of the conspirators. 
 
 It will be remembered that he carried the dispatches from the 
 Richmond government to the Canada conspirators, sanctioning the 
 arrangements that had been made by them to secure the assassi- 
 nations they had planned ; that he arrived with these dispatches at 
 Montreal on the 6th of April; and that the execution of the 
 plot was at once entered upon, those of the conspirators who 
 were to take an active part preparing immediately and starting for 
 Washington, boasting openly of what they would do when they
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND TRIAL. \\-j 
 
 should have reached their destination. Some of these were known, 
 and will be hereafter referred to by name ; but there would seem 
 to have been a number of them whose names were never learned. 
 John H. Surratt came back, either alone or in company with some 
 of them. That he was in Washington, aiding and abetting, on the 
 day and night of the assassination, was positively sworn to by one 
 of the witnesses who was well acquainted with him ; and from the 
 concurrence of testimony, there is good reason to believe that he 
 was one of the two parties with whom Booth was in communica- 
 tion on the sidewalk in front of the theatre, as heretofore narrated, 
 and that he acted as monitor, calling the time for Booth. He 
 seems, however, to have had the bumps both of cautiousness and 
 secretiveness largely developed, and so kept himself as much as 
 possible out of sight in the transaction in which he was no doubt, 
 at the same time, an active participant. He most probably left 
 Washington on the first train after the work was done, as we have 
 no trace of him again until we find him at Burlington, Vt., on 
 his way to Canada, on the i8th of April. As it is my purpose to 
 devote a chapter or two to his case especially, I shall not, at this 
 time, pursue it any further; but as he was undoubtedly a very 
 active and important factor in the conspiracy, and escaped justice 
 merely by escaping capture at the time, and so securing a civil 
 trial after the war was over, a history of his case naturally comes 
 within the scope of my plan, and will serve to illustrate what I have 
 already said in relation to the existing facts in regard to the pop- 
 ulation of the District of Columbia that would have rendered a 
 civil trial futile in the cases brought before the Commission.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE 
 CHARGE AND SPECIFICATIONS, FOR WHICH DAVIS AND HIS 
 CANADA CABINET WERE RESPONSIBLE. 
 
 IT will have been noticed that in its charge and specifications 
 against the prisoners on trial the government charged Jefferson 
 Davis, George N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, 
 William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George 
 Young, and others unknown, with combining, confederating, and 
 conspiring together with one John H. Surratt and John Wilkes 
 Booth to kill and murder Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, 
 William H. Seward, and Ulysses S. Grant; and in the specifica- 
 tions it is alleged that David E. Herold, Edward Spangler, Lewis 
 Payne, Michael O'Laughlin, Samuel Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, 
 George Atzerodt, and Samuel A. Mudd, together with the said 
 John H. Surratt and John Wilkes Booth, incited and encouraged 
 thereunto by Jefferson Davis, George N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, 
 Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George 
 Harper, George Young, and others unknown, did kill and murder 
 Abraham Lincoln, and assault violently with intent to kill William 
 H. Seward. In this the government distinctly and unequivocally 
 charged Jefferson Davis and his allies with inciting and encourag- 
 ing the prisoners on trial to the commission of this great crime, 
 with the political intent of giving aid to their sinking cause. They 
 were not arraigned before the Commission, for they were not in 
 custody ; but they were arraigned before the world. The Com- 
 mission was then not called upon to render a finding in their case ; 
 but the government was called upon to present to the world through 
 the Commission the evidence on which its grave charge against 
 118
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 119 
 
 these men, who had rendered themselves conspicuous before the 
 world, was founded. Its honor and dignity made this obligatory 
 upon it. A careful reading of the charge and specifications on 
 which the assassins were arraigned and tried will show that it was 
 competent for the government to present, on that trial, the evi- 
 dence in its possession on which it charged Jefferson Davis, Jacob 
 Thompson, Clement C. Clay, Beverly Tucker, George N. Sanders, 
 William C. Cleary, George Young, George Harper, and others, as 
 being inciters to this crime. This evidence was so conclusive of 
 their guilt as charged, that had they been before the Commission 
 they could only have escaped conviction by impeaching the govern- 
 ment's witnesses. 
 
 Before entering upon the consideration of the evidence a few 
 prefatory remarks seem to be necessary. At an early period of 
 the rebellion Jefferson Davis and his cabinet felt the necessity of 
 sending some of the strongest men of the Confederacy to establish 
 their headquarters in Canada, to look after the interests of the 
 rebel cause, both at home and abroad, and to render assistance to 
 that cause in everyway that they could. Amongst its agents thus 
 sent to Canada we find Jacob Thompson of Mississippi, who had 
 been Secretary of the Interior during Buchanan's administration ; 
 Clement C. Clay, who had been a United States Senator from Ala- 
 bama ; Beverly Tucker, who had been a circuit judge in Virginia ; 
 George N. Sanders, William C. Cleary, George Young, George 
 Harper, and others of less note, acting in subordinate capacities 
 under the above conspicuous leaders and agents. 
 
 These agents had been domiciled within the territory of a 
 neutral government to carry on belligerent operations, contrary to 
 the laws of nations and also of war ; and the operations planned 
 by them from time to time, and sometimes executed, were of the 
 highest moral turpitude. The fact that, although the government 
 of Canada held the position of a neutral power as between the 
 belligerents, yet its people, in the proportion of five to one, 
 sympathized with the rebellion, made it very favorable to the 
 execution of the schemes of these Southern emissaries. They 
 also occupied a position that geographically was most favorable to 
 their purposes. They were within easy and constant communica-
 
 I2O ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 tion with the enemies of the government that were to be found in 
 every Northern State, and at the same time were able to afford a 
 place of refuge for rebel prisoners who were able to find means of 
 escape from Northern prisons. Canada was a place where dis- 
 loyal refugees and persons accused of offenses against the govern- 
 ment congregated all through the war ; and so Jefferson Davis's 
 Canada Cabinet was never at a loss for material for carrying out 
 its plans without regard to their character. They were constantly 
 surrounded by desperate and reckless men, who were in deep 
 sympathy with them in their desperate purpose to overthrow the 
 government, and like them, ready to engage in anything that 
 might give aid in carrying out that purpose. From the head of 
 the rebel government on down through the ranks of this class' of 
 its agents, there appears to have been no restraint from any moral 
 consideration. The honorable men of the Confederacy were found, 
 to a large extent, in the ranks of its soldiers engaged in open war- 
 fare, he assassination plot was the last card of these desperate 
 men ; it was preceded by many others in which the laws of war 
 and the laws of morals were utterly ignored. We will, therefore, 
 in the first place, present some of the most flagrant of these, in 
 regard to which the evidence makes Jefferson Davis and his 
 Canada Cabinet responsible, in order that from these revelations 
 we may be thoroughly informed of their utter disregard of every 
 moral consideration, and that we may thus be prepared for the 
 conclusions to which the evidence of their complicity in, and 
 responsibility for, the assassination plot point. 
 
 To show the utter lack of moral appreciation, the entire disre- 
 gard of all moral requirements, and contempt for the enlightened 
 Christian sentiment of the world as embodied in the accepted 
 codes of martial and international law, and that the assassination 
 plot was only in keeping with their other schemes to aid the rebel 
 cause, I deem it necessary to dwell at some length on the state- 
 ment of these schemes, as shown by the testimony before the 
 Commission. The St. Albans raid, under the lead of Lieutenant 
 Bennett H. Young (made a lieutenant for this occasion only, and 
 that by the filling up for him of a Commission that was sent to 
 Clay, in blank, by the rebel secretary of war, and to be thus con-
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 121 
 
 ferred by him, at his discretion, on the persons he engaged in such 
 expeditions, as a protection in case of a trial for extradition), was 
 simply a hostile expedition planned by these conspirators, who 
 organized a squad of about twenty escaped Confederate soldiers 
 from the prisons in which they had been confined, and placed them 
 under command of Young, armed with one of these commissions 
 for his protection. This bogus lieutenant was instructed to pass 
 through the New England States with his command, and escape 
 by the way of Halifax, burning towns and farm-houses as he went ; 
 and by robbing and plundering to secure all the money he could, 
 and whatever else he could convert to the use of the Confederate 
 government. He made a foray into Vermont; set fire to the 
 town of St. Albans ; robbed two banks, securing about two hun- 
 dred thousand dollars; and then, finding himself confronted by 
 such opposition that he was unable to proceed, was compelled to 
 retreat into Canada, being so closely pursued that he and a good 
 part of his command were made prisoners. They were com- 
 mitted to jail to await a trial for extradition. 
 
 This was simply a guerilla raid, organized on neutral territory, 
 not for the purpose of engaging in open and honorable warfare 
 against an armed foe," but to burn and plunder the property of 
 unarmed people, who were non-combatants engaged in the pur- 
 suits of peaceful life. Young's commission, however, enabled him 
 to defeat the demand for his extradition, as he was not captured 
 until he had regained that neutral territory on which, in violation 
 of the law of nations, his expedition had been organized. It is 
 easy to see from this where the sympathies of the Canadian court 
 that tried this case lay. Pending this trial for extradition, Clay 
 became very uneasy for fear the commission conferred by him on 
 Young might not prove a sufficient protection, and so he sent 
 Richard Montgomery, who was in the employ of the United 
 States in its department of secret service, and who had so well 
 wormed himself into the confidence of the Canada Cabinet as to 
 be employed by them on this mission, with a letter to James A. 
 Seddon, the rebel secretary of war, urging him by every consider- 
 ation he could think of to give a direct sanction to Young's act, 
 and to demand in the name of the Confederate government that 
 he should be released.
 
 122 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 This letter was carried to Richmond by Montgomery, after hav- 
 ing been exhibited to the Secretary of War of the United States. 
 I refer to this as showing the status of Montgomery with these agents 
 of the Confederate government in Canada, and as evidence of his 
 having gained their entire confidence ; and so he was in a position to 
 be a witness, before the Commission, as being informed of their plans 
 and of their doings. In response to this argument and earnest 
 appeal of Clay, the rebel government shouldered the responsibility 
 of the St. Albans raid, and shielded the raiders against extradition. 
 The following is a copy of Lieutenaut Young's instructions from 
 
 the rebel government : 
 
 CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 WAR DEPARTMENT, 
 RICHMOND, VA., June i6th, 1864. 
 To Lieutenant BENNETT H. YOUNG: 
 
 LIEUTENANT : You have been temporarily appointed first lieutenant in the provi- 
 sional army for special service. You will proceed without delay to the British Prov- 
 inces, where you will report to Messrs. Thompson and Clay for instructions. 
 
 You will, under their direction, collect together such Confederate soldiers who have 
 escaped from the enemy, not exceeding twenty in number, as you may deem suitable 
 for the purpose, and will execute such enterprises as may be entrusted to you. 
 
 You will take care to commit no violation of the local law, and to obey implicitly 
 their instructions. 
 
 You and your men will receive from these gentlemen transportation and the custom- 
 ary rations and clothing, or commutation therefor. 
 
 JAMES A. SEDDON, 
 
 VA. June i6th. Secretary of War. 
 
 Here we have the response to Clay's letter, and everything fixed 
 up for the defense of Young and his men after the act had been 
 committed, the papers being antedated to meet the requirements 
 of the case. 
 
 During the progress of this trial for the extradition of the 
 raiders, Thompson, Clay, Tucker, and Sanders necessarily held 
 a kind of professional intercourse with the counsel representing 
 the United States. Sanders, on one occasion, became full of 
 self-importance, as also, probably, of whiskey, when his discretion 
 forsook him, and he gave vent to the vaunting and boasting of a 
 braggadocio. He said this raid was not the last that would occur, 
 but it would be followed by the depleting of many other banks 
 and the burning of other towns on the frontier, and that many
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 123 
 
 Yankee sons of (using a coarse and vulgar expression) would 
 
 be killed. He said they had their plans perfectly organized, and 
 men ready to sack and burn Buffalo, Detroit, New York, and other 
 places, and had deferred them for a time, but would soon see the 
 plans wholly executed ; and any preparations that could be made 
 by the government to prevent them, would not, though they might 
 delay them for a time. He claimed to be acting as the agent of 
 the Confederate government, and we have seen that it assumed 
 the responsibility. Several other raids of like character were 
 planned, but were prevented by preparations which the govern- 
 ment was enabled to make by being informed of them in advance 
 by persons engaged in its secret service, or by other friends in 
 Canada, who, being in the confidence of the conspirators, became 
 informed as to their plans. 
 
 These plans involved a warfare against non-combatants ; a war, 
 as we shall see, of poisoning reservoirs, of burning towns and cities 
 by wholesale ; a war of the destruction of men, women, and chil- 
 dren ; burning of hospitals, churches, and private dwellings ; a war 
 for the destruction of life and property; in short, a war against 
 humanity. The City of New York came in for a large share of 
 their consideration. The destruction of the Croton dam was an 
 enterprise that seemed very desirable to them, and for which they 
 planned ; and had the rebel armies been able to keep the field a 
 little while longer, this would no doubt have been attempted and 
 perhaps accomplished. The poisoning of the reservoirs supply- 
 ing the city with water seemed very desirable to them, and was 
 much discussed. This was one of the hobbies of the infamous 
 Dr. Blackburn and a Mr. M. A. Fallen of Mississippi, who had 
 been a surgeon in the rebel army. They had made a calculation 
 of the capacity of the reservoirs supplying the city, and had calcu- 
 lated the amount of poison required to make an ordinary draught 
 of water fatal to life. Amongst the poisons they had considered 
 arsenic, strychnine, and prussic acid as available. Blackburn 
 thought the project feasible. Thompson feared it would be 
 impossible to collect so large a quantity of poisonous matter 
 without exciting suspicion and leading to the detection of the 
 parties engaged in it. Fallen and others thought it could be
 
 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 managed in Europe. This matter was fully and freely discussed in 
 June, 1864, by Blackburn, Fallen, Thompson, Sanders, and Cleary. 
 
 The moral question involved in the destruction, by poison, of 
 the entire population of the American commercial metropolis, 
 men, women, and children, did not enter into their thoughts; it 
 was, in fact, a scheme dear to their hearts ; the difficulties attend- 
 ing its accomplishment were the only things that gave them any 
 trouble. 
 
 This is that same Dr. Blackburn who, with the approbation of 
 Thompson and his gang, made an effort in the summer of 1864 
 to spread pestilence in Washington City, and in other cities occu- 
 pied by federal troops, as far south as could be reached, by 
 means of clothing infected with yellow fever and with small-pox. 
 
 Conover testified to this positively and circumstantially as one 
 of their many wicked schemes to spread consternation over the 
 North, and so demoralize the people that they would be willing 
 to make peace on any terms. 
 
 As this last scheme is so monstrous in character that it can 
 only be believed on the fullest proof, I give the testimony of 
 Godfrey Joseph Hyams before the Commission, in full. 
 
 " I am a native of London, Eng., but have lived south nine or 
 ten years. During the past year I have resided in Toronto, Can. 
 About the middle of December, 1863, I made the acquaintance 
 of Dr. Blackburn. I was introduced to him by the Rev. Stewart 
 Robinson at the Queen's Hotel in Toronto. I knew him by sight 
 previously, but before that had no conversation with him. I 
 knew that he was a Confederate and was working for the rebellion. 
 Dr. Blackburn was then about to take south some men who had 
 escaped from the federal service, and I asked to go with him. 
 He asked me if I wanted to go south and serve the Confederacy. 
 I said I did. He then told me to come upstairs to a private 
 room, as he wanted to speak to me. He took me upstairs, and 
 after we had entered his room he pledged his word as a free- 
 mason, and offered his hand in friendship, that he would never 
 deceive me. He said he wanted to confide to me an expedition. 
 I told him I would not care if I did. He said I would make an 
 independent fortune by it, at least one hundred thousand dollars, 

 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 125 
 
 and get more honor and glory to my name than General Lee, and 
 be of more assistance to the Confederate government than if I was 
 to take one hundred thousand soldiers to reinforce General Lee. 
 I pledged my word that I would go if I could do any good. He 
 then told me he wanted me to take a certain quantity of clothing, 
 consisting of shirts, coats, and underclothing, into the States, and 
 dispose of them by auction. I was to take them to Washington 
 City, to Norfolk, and as far south as I could possibly go, where 
 the federal government held possession and had the most troops, 
 and to sell them on a hot day or of a night; that it did not 
 matter what money I got for the clothing, I had just to dispose of 
 them in the best market where there were the most troops, and 
 where they would be most effective, and then come away. He 
 told me I should have one hundred thousand dollars for my ser- 
 vices, sixty thousand dollars of it directly after I returned to 
 Toronto ; but he said that would not be a circumstance to what I 
 should get. He said I might make ten times one hundred thou- 
 sand dollars. I was to stay in Toronto, and go on with my 
 legitimate business until I heard from him. He told me to keep 
 quiet, and if I moved anywhere I was to inform Dr. Stewart 
 Robinson where I went to, and he would telegraph for me, or 
 write to me through him. Sometime in the month of May, 1864, 
 I went to my work and worked on until the 8th day of June, '64 ; 
 it was on a Saturday night ; I had been out to take a pair of boots 
 home to a customer of mine ; when I returned home my wife had 
 a letter for me from Dr. Blackburn, which Dr. Stewart Robinson 
 had left in passing there. I read the letter, and went out to see 
 Dr. Robinson. I asked him what I was to do about it. He said 
 he did not know anything about it ; that he did not want to 
 furnish any means to commit an overt act against the United 
 States government. He advised me to borrow from Mr. Preston, 
 who keeps a tobacco manufactory in Toronto, enough money to 
 take me to Montreal, and there get money from Mr. Slaughter, 
 according to the directions contained in Dr. Blackburn's letter. 
 This letter instructed me to proceed from Montreal to Halifax to 
 meet Dr. Blackburn; it was dated Havana, May loth, 1864. I 
 went to Halifax to a gentleman by the name of Alexander H.
 
 126 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Keith, Jr., and remained under his care until Dr. Blackburn 
 arrived in the steamer 'Alpha,' on the I2th of July, 1864. 
 When Dr. Blackburn arrived he sent to the Farmer's Hotel, where 
 I was staying, for me. I went to see him, and he told me that 
 the goods were on board the steamer 'Alpha,' and that the 
 second officer on the steamer would go with me and get the goods 
 off, as they had been smuggled in from Bermuda. Mr. Hill, the 
 second officer, told me to get an express wagon and take it down 
 to Cunard's steamboat .wharf. I did so, and there got eight 
 trunks and a valise. I was directed to take them to my hotel, 
 and put them in a private room. I put them in Mr. Doran's 
 private sitting-room. I then went around to Dr. Blackburn, and 
 told him I had got the goods off the steamer. He told me that 
 the five trunks tied up with ropes were the ones for me to take, 
 and asked me if I would take the valise into the States and send it 
 by express, with an accompanying letter, as a donation to Presi- 
 dent Lincoln. I objected to taking it, and refused to do so. I 
 then took three of the trunks and the valise around to the hotel. 
 He was then staying at the Halifax Hotel. The trunks had 
 Spanish marks upon them, and he told me to scrape them off, and 
 that Mr. Hill would go with me the next morning and make 
 arrangements with some captain of a vessel to take them. There 
 were two vessels there running to Boston, and I was to make an 
 arrangement with either of them to smuggle the trunks through 
 to Boston. The next morning I went down with Mr. Hill to the 
 vessels. Mr. Hill had a private conversation with Captain 
 McGregor, the captain of the first vessel, to whom we applied to 
 take the goods, and he refused. 
 
 " We then went to see Captain O'Brien of the bark ' Halifax.' 
 Hill told him that I had some presents in my trunks, consisting 
 of silks, satin dresses, etc., that I wanted to take to my friends. The 
 Captain and Mr. Hill had a private conversation, and when the 
 Captain came out he consented to take them. I was to give him 
 a twenty-dollar gold piece for smuggling them in. I put them on 
 board the vessel that day and he stowed them away. The vessel 
 lay five days at Boston before he could get a chance to get them 
 off, but finally he succeeded in getting them off, and expressed
 
 127 
 
 them to Philadelphia, where I received them and brought them to 
 Baltimore. I then took out the goods, which were very much 
 rumpled, and smoothed them out and arranged them, bought some 
 new trunks, and repacked them and brought them to this city. 
 Dr. Blackburn, by way of caution, asked me before leaving if I 
 had had the yellow fever, and on my saying ' no,' he said, 'You must 
 have a preventive against taking it. You must get some camphor 
 and chew it, and get some strong cigars, the strongest you can 
 get; and be sure to keep gloves on your hands when handling 
 the things.' He gave me some cigars that he said he had brought 
 from Havana, which he said were strong enough for anything. 
 When I arrived in this city, I turned over five of the trunks to 
 Messrs. W. L. Wall & Company, commission merchants in this 
 city, and four to a man by the name of Myers, from Boston, a 
 sutler for Siegel's or Weitzel's division. He said he had some 
 goods which he was going to take to New Berne, N.C., and 
 I told him that I had a lot of goods that I wanted to sell, and, 
 to make the best market I could for them, I would turn them over 
 to him on commission. I also told him I would shortly have 
 more, and mentioned that I had disposed of some to Wall & 
 Company, of this city. Dr. Blackburn told me, when I was mak- 
 ing arrangements, that I should let the parties to whom I dis- 
 posed of my goods know that I would have a big lot to sell, as 
 it was in contemplation to get together about a million dollars' 
 worth of goods and dispose of them in that way. Dr. Blackburn 
 stated that his object in having these goods disposed of in different 
 cities was to destroy the armies, or anybody that they came in 
 contact with. All these goods, he told me, had been carefully 
 infected in Bermuda with yellow fever, small-pox, and other con- 
 tagious diseases. 
 
 " The goods in the valise, which were intended for President 
 Lincoln, I understood him to say had been infected with yellow 
 fever and small-pox. This valise I declined taking charge of and 
 turned it over to him at Halifax Hotel, and I afterwards heard 
 that it had been sent to the President. On the five trunks that I 
 turned over to Wall & Company I got an advance of one hundred 
 dollars. Among these five trunks there was one that was always
 
 128 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 spoken of by Blackburn to me as 'Big No. 2,' which he said I 
 must be sure to have sold in Washington. On disposing of the 
 trunks I immediately left Washington, and went straight through 
 until I got to Hamilton, Canada. In the waiting-room there I 
 met Mr. Holcomb and Clement C. Clay. They both rose, shook 
 hands with me, and congratulated me upon my safe return, and 
 upon my making a fortune. They told me I should be a gentleman 
 for the future, instead of a working man and a mechanic. They 
 seemed perfectly to understand the business in which I had been 
 engaged. 
 
 " Mr. Holcomb told me that Dr. Blackburn was at the Donegan 
 Hotel, in Montreal, and that I had better telegraph to him stating 
 that I had returned. As Dr. Blackburn had requested me to tele- 
 graph to him as soon as I got into Canada, I did so, and the next 
 night, between eleven and twelve o'clock, Dr. Blackburn came up 
 and knocked at the door of my house. I was in bed at the time. 
 I looked out of the window, and saw Dr. Blackburn there. Said 
 he, ' Come down, Hyams, and open the door ; you are like all 
 damned rascals who have been doing something wrong you're 
 afraid that the devil is after you.' He was in company with Ben- 
 nett H. Young. I came down and let him in. He asked me how 
 I had disposed of the go.ods and I told him. ' Well/ said he ' that 
 is all right as long as "Big No. 2 " went into Washington; it will 
 kill them at sixty yards distance.' I then told the doctor that 
 everything had gone wrong at my home in my absence ; that I 
 needed some funds ; that my family needed money. He said he 
 would go to Colonel Jacob Thompson and make arrangements for 
 me to draw upon him for any amount of money that I required. 
 He then said that the British authorities had solicited his services in 
 attending the yellow fever that was then raging in Bermuda ; that 
 he was going on there ; and that as soon as he came back he 
 would see me. I went up to Jacob Thompson the next morning, 
 and told him what Dr. Blackburn had said. He said ' Yes ' ; Dr. 
 Blackburn had been there and had made arrangements for me to 
 draw one hundred dollars whenever it was shown that I had made 
 disposition of the goods according to his directions. I told him 
 I needed money ; that I had been so long away from home that
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 129 
 
 everything I had was gone, and I wanted money to pay my rent, 
 etc. He said, ' I will give you fifty dollars now, but it is against 
 Dr. Blackburn's request; when you show me that you have sold 
 the goods, I will give you the balance.' He asked me to give him 
 a receipt, which I did : ' Received of Jacob Thompson the sum 
 of fifty dollars on account of Dr. Blackburn.' That was about the 
 nth or 1 2th of August last. The next day I wrote to Messrs. 
 Wall & Company, of Washington, desiring them to send me an 
 account of the sales, and the balance due me. When I received 
 their answer, I took it to Colonel Thompson. He then said he 
 was perfectly satisfied I had done my part, and gave me a check 
 for fifty dollars on the Ontario Bank. I gave him a receipt : 
 ' Received of Jacob Thompson one hundred dollars in full on 
 account of Dr. Luke P. Blackburn.' I told Thompson of the large 
 sum which Dr. Blackburn had promised me for my services and 
 that he and Mr. Holcomb had both told me that the Confederate 
 government had appropriated two million dollars for the purpose 
 of carrying it out ; but he would not pay me any more. When 
 Dr. Blackburn returned from Bermuda, I wrote to him at Mont- 
 treal, and told him I wanted some money, and that he ought to 
 send me some ; but he made no reply to my letter. I was then 
 sent down to Montreal with a commission for Bennett H. Young, 
 to be used in his defense it the St. Albans raid case. I there 
 met Dr. Blackburn. He said I had written some hard letters to 
 him, abusing him, and that he had no money to give me. He 
 then got into his carriage at the door and rode off to some races, 
 I think, and never gave me any more satisfaction. As I wanted 
 money before leaving for the States, I went to the Clifton House, 
 Niagara. Dr. Blackburn told me he had no money with him then, 
 but that he would go to Mr. Holcomb and get some, as he had Con- 
 federate funds with him. Blackburn said that when I returned he 
 would get the money for the expedition from either Holcomb or 
 Thompson, it did not matter which. From this, and from Holcomb 
 and Clay both shaking hands with me and congratulating me at 
 Hamilton upon my safe return, I thought, of course, they knew all 
 about it. I do not know that Dr. Stewart Robinson knew of the 
 business in which I was engaged, but he took good care of me while
 
 130 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 I was at Toronto, in the fall, and until Dr. Blackburn wrote for me 
 in the spring ; and when he gave me Dr. Blackburn's letter, he told 
 me to borrow the money from Mr. Preston to take me to Mon- 
 treal, as he said he did not want to commit an overt act against 
 the Government of the United States himself. Mr. Preston lent 
 me ten dollars to go to Montreal. On arriving at that place, 
 according to the directions of Dr. Blackburn's letter, I went to 
 Mr. Slaughter to get the means to take me to Halifax. Mr. 
 Slaughter was short of funds, and had only twenty dollars that 
 he could give me. He said that I had better go to Mr. Holcomb, 
 who was staying at the Donegan Hotel, and he would give me the 
 balance. I went to the Hotel and sent up my name, and he sent 
 for me to come up. I told him I wanted some money to take me 
 to Halifax ; he asked me how much I wanted ; I told him as much 
 as would make up forty dollars ; he said ' You had better take fifty 
 dollars,' but as I did not want that much I only took enough to 
 make forty dollars. When I came to Washington to dispose of 
 my goods, which was on the 5th of August, 1864, I put up at 
 the National Hotel, registered my name as J. W. Harris, under 
 which name I did business with Wall & Company." 
 
 Here we have a straightforward, circumstantial account of the 
 efforts made and the means used to spread pestilence and death 
 amongst citizens and soldiers alike, in the capital of the nation, 
 and in other cities and camps, a special consignment, supposed 
 to contain the contagion of yellow fever and small-pox, being sent 
 as " a donation to President Lincoln." This was for the pur- 
 pose of taking his life, and at the risk of the lives of his house- 
 hold. Blackburn, Clay, Thompson, and Holcomb were the 
 originators of the plan, and as guilty as the infamous scoundrel, 
 Hyams, who, to gratify his desire for revenge on them for their 
 perfidy in putting him off with a mere pittance of the promised 
 reward for his services in the matter, comes before the Commis- 
 sion and reveals the whole history of their infamy. No one who 
 reads his story will doubt that he was a conscienceless scoundrel, 
 who, for the hope of obtaining a large sum of money, according 
 to their promise, was willing to make himself an instrument in the 
 wholesale and indiscriminate destruction of human life. But
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 131 
 
 monster as he was, he was not more a monster than was each one 
 of his employers He was evidently a man well qualified for the 
 task in which he was employed ; in the first place destitute of 
 conscience, and then a man of a good degree of intelligence, 
 shrewdness, and knowledge of affairs. Granting that he was 
 selected by Dr. Robinson, and recommended by him to Dr. 
 Blackburn, he could not have made a better selection had he 
 had full knowledge of the work cut out for him to do. And when 
 we consider Blackburn's perfidy in his dealings with him, pledging 
 his faith as a freemason and giving him his hand in friendship, 
 assuring him that he would never deceive him ; then building 
 him up in the idea that he would receive one hundred thousand 
 dollars, and perhaps ten times that amount as his reward ; and 
 then, after he had performed a service that put his own life in 
 jeopardy, to put him off with a mere pittance of the amount 
 promised, we cannot wonder that a man constituted as Hyams 
 was should divulge the terrible secret in revenge for the shabby 
 treatment he had received at their hands. 
 
 See how Clay and Holcomb meet him on his return ! They 
 understand all about the character of his mission, congratulate 
 him on his safe return, and on the fact that from thenceforth he 
 was not to be known as a laboring man and a mechanic, but as a 
 gentleman. 
 
 No wonder that he, when for the pitiful sum of one hundred 
 dollars he had signed for Thompson a receipt in full on account 
 of Dr. Blackburn, vowed to have revenge. How true it is that 
 there must be honor even amongst the worst of villains, in order 
 that they may hang together. They broke faith with Hyams, and 
 Hyams revealed circumstantially, and fully, their great crime 
 against humanity. We have now seen these men planning to 
 poison the water supply of New York City to the extent of fatal- 
 ity to its whole population, men, women, and children, helpless 
 age, and more helpless infancy doomed to death by the scope of 
 their plan ; and now, we have found them engaged in an effort to 
 spread pestilence with the same purpose of the indiscriminate 
 destruction of human life. What worse can they do? Can we 
 after this be surprised at anything they may undertake? It will
 
 132 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 not avail to say that a man who could be hired to do such a thing 
 as this is unworthy of credence, even under oath, and so that his 
 testimony is not to be received. Hyams' story bears on its face 
 the marks of a truthful narrative of the facts, just as they occurred, 
 and it does not follow that because a man is a confessed scoundrel 
 he is incapable of telling the truth. No adequate motive for false- 
 hood in this case can be assigned. Had his employers kept faith 
 with him, he would no doubt have kept their terrible secret, and 
 it would have been buried with him. That they did not, only 
 becomes a reason for his disclosure of the facts, not for his fabri- 
 cation of falsehoods. But then his statement as to how he dis- 
 posed of the goods in Washington City is fully confirmed by the 
 testimony of Wall & Company, who produced an account of 
 the transaction agreeing exactly, in date and amount, with that 
 given by Hyams, and also in regard to his alias of J. W. Harris. 
 It was also corroborated by the National Hotel register of that 
 date. 
 
 Conover testified to this as one of the schemes planned by 
 Thompson and his gang, and Hyams gives a full account of 
 the manner of its execution. For some reason the infection 
 was a failure in Washington City ; but not so with the goods sent 
 by Myers, the sutler, to New Berne, N.C. It will be recol- 
 lected that an epidemic of yellow fever broke out there in the 
 latter part of the summer of 1864, that swept away farge numbers 
 of people, both citizens and soldiers. No doubt this epidemic was 
 due to the infection carried in the clothing that Myers received 
 from Hyams, to be sold on commission ; and that in the great day 
 of final account these men will find themselves arraigned as the 
 murderers of all those who fell as the victims of their hellish plot, 
 before a tribunal that is infinitely perfect in its knowledge and 
 just in its decisions. 
 
 Plot to Burn New York City and its Attempted Execution. 
 
 The plot to burn the city of New York was attempted to be 
 carried out on the 25th of November, 1864. I will give the his- 
 tory of this attempt as narrated in his confession, by Robert C. 
 Kennedy, one of the gang of incendiaries sent there for that pur-
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 133 
 
 pose, who was arrested, tried, found guilty, condemned, and hanged 
 for his crime. Before his execution he made a full confession as 
 follows :- 
 
 " After my escape from Johnson's Island I went to Canada, where I met a number 
 of Confederates. They asked me if I was willing to go on an expedition. I replied: 
 ' Yes, if it is in the service of my country.' They said: ' It is all right,' but gave me 
 no intimation of its nature, nor did I ask for any. I was then sent to New York, where 
 I stayed some time. There were eight men of our party, of whom two fled to Canada. 
 After we had been in New York three weeks we were told that the object of our expe- 
 dition was to retaliate on the North for the atrocities in the Shenandoah Valley. It 
 was designed to set fire to the city on the night of the Presidential election; but the 
 phosphorus was not ready, and it was put off until the 25th of November. I was 
 stopping at the Belmont House, but moved into Prince Street. I set fire to four 
 places in Barnum's Museum, Lovejoy's Hotel, Tammany Hotel, and the New Eng- 
 land House. The others merely started fires in the house where each one was lodging, 
 and then ran off. Had they all done as I did, we would have had thirty-two fires and 
 played a huge joke on the fire department. I know that I am to be hung for setting 
 fire to Barnum's Museum, but that was only a joke. I had no idea of doing it. I had 
 been drinking and went in there with a friend, and, just to scare the people, I emptied 
 a bottle of phosphorus on the floor. We knew it would not set fire to the wood, for 
 we had tried it before, and at one time had concluded to give the thing up. There 
 was no fiendishness about it. After setting fire to my four places, I walked the streets all 
 night, and went to the Exchange Hotel early in the morning. We all met there that 
 morning and the next night. My friend and I had rooms there, but we sat in the 
 office nearly all the time reading the papers, while we were watched by the detectives, 
 of whom the hotel was full. I expected to die then, and if I had it would have been 
 all right; but now it seems rather hard. I escaped to Canada and was glad enough 
 when I crossed the bridge in safety. I desired, however, to return to my command, 
 and started with my friend for the Confederacy via Detroit. Just before entering the 
 city he received an intimation that the detectives were on the look-out for us, and giv- 
 ing me the signal he jumped from the cars. I did not notice the signal, but kept on 
 and was arrested in the depot. I wish to say that the killing of women and children 
 was the last thing thought of. We wanted to let the people of the North understand 
 that there were two sides to this war, and that they could not be rolling in wealth and 
 comfort while we at the South were bearing all the hardships and privations. In retal- 
 iation for Sheridan's atrocities in the Shenandoah Valley, we desired to destroy prop- 
 erty; not the lives of women and children, although that would, of course, have 
 followed in its train." 
 
 Done in the presence of LIEUT. COL. MARTIN BURKE and 
 
 J. HOWARD, JR. 
 arch 24th, 1865, 10.30 P.M. 
 
 Kennedy, in the presence of death, made this free and full con- 
 fession, carefully confining himself to the narration of his own and 
 the acts of his fellow incendiaries. He does not tell who planned 
 this enterprise of death and destruction for the great metropolis of
 
 134 'SSASSINATJON OF LINCOLN. 
 
 the country, and whilst honestly confessing his own part in it, is 
 very careful not to compromise anybody else. But we are not left 
 without information as to who were the employers of him and his 
 gang ; and here again Thompson and his fellow agents of the rebel 
 government in Canada are made to appear as its originators, and 
 must be held responsible, not only for the attempt thus made to 
 destroy New York by fire, but also for the worst consequences that 
 could have happened had their attempt proven successful. 1 Ken- 
 nedy says they did not desire to destroy the lives of women and 
 children, although that would of course have followed in its train. 
 Thompson, Clay, Cleary, Sanders, and any others that had any 
 hand in setting this expedition on foot, could not fail to know what 
 would necessarily follow in its train if successful, but were not de- 
 terred by the knowledge of the fact that it involved not merely the 
 destruction of property, but of necessity also the destruction of 
 women and children ; for the firing of a city like New York in many 
 places, simultaneously, if successful in its object, the destruction of 
 the city, must necessarily result in the same kind of indiscriminate 
 destruction of human life that resulted at New Berne, from the dis- 
 semination of pestilence sent there in the clothing that that inhu- 
 man fiend, Dr. Blackburn, had carefully infected and sent there for 
 that very purpose. In the early ages of the world war meant the 
 indiscriminate destruction of all that belonged to the enemy. The 
 spirit of war then was to exterminate the foe. Prisoners of war 
 were slaughtered after the battle was ended. Women and chil- 
 dren were killed or carried into slavery. Men had not learned to 
 exercise mercy in war. It meant universal destruction of life, and 
 confiscation of the property of the enemy. It meant even the con- 
 fiscation of the territory or country in which he lived. T t is so 
 yet among the savage tribes of the earth. With them the murder of 
 a woman about to become a mother is nothing, and the dashing out 
 of the brains of her children against a stone or a tree, before her 
 eyes, yields to them a fiendish satisfaction. Civilized nations, how- 
 ever, do not so carry on war, and the laws of war do not permit this 
 mode of warfare. The annals of no age of the world, or of the 
 
 1 Conspiracy Trial, pp. 29, 30, testimony of Conover; also p. 36, testimony of Dr. 
 Merritt; also p. 25, testimony of Montgomery.
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 135 
 
 most rude and savage people of the earth, afford examples more 
 atrocious than those planned and executed, or attempted to be 
 executed, by these agents of Jefferson Davis in Canada, and by 
 other agents, as we shall see, whose deeds were sanctioned and paid 
 for by Davis and his Secretary of State Benjamin. 
 
 The prison-pen at Andersonville was evidently planned for the 
 destruction of the lives of the prisoners of war that were sent 
 there ; and if any escaped death, it was intended that they should 
 be so physically injured that they could never again render any 
 service to the Union cause. In a country abounding in forest 
 shade and pure water, there can be no excuse given for locating a 
 prison-pen in a little intervale, wholly destitue of shade, where 
 men without tents or shelter of any kind were huddled together 
 by the thousands, with a very meagre supply of water, for a long 
 time, even for quenching thirst, and none at all for the purposes 
 of cleanliness, and what they had for the former purpose being con- 
 taminated with all the filth from the drainage of the town just above. 
 
 It is evident that this location was made with a view to the destruc- 
 tion of life and the ruin of health. Then, for the further carrying 
 out of this purpose, the rations supplied were not only wholly 
 insufficient in quantity, but most unwholesome in quality, exactly 
 adapted to aid the effects of miasmatic exposure, and foul water, 
 in bringing on stomach and bowel troubles and low forms of fever, 
 which were kept up until life was literally drained out, and death 
 from exhaustion ensued. Here, without any sympathetic medical 
 assistance or proper medicine, men were dying daily by the fifties 
 and the hundreds, and the survivors becoming mere ghostly 
 spectres ; whilst the inhuman monster, Wirtz, stood gloating over 
 the scene in devilish glee, and his inhuman guards were con- 
 stantly on the lookout for pretexts to shoot down their fellowmen, 
 as though the terrible harvest of death, secured by their arrange- 
 ments and management of this graveyard of the living, was too 
 meagre, and required their bullets to enrich it. Such was Ander- 
 sonville. The purpose of its location and management are too 
 obvious to need remark ; and for all this, Jefferson Davis and his 
 Secretary of War are to be held responsible. Far be it from me 
 to bring up this matter for the purpose of giving a fresh impulse
 
 136 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 to sectional enmity. I only do it to show the low moral status of 
 those who were responsible for the conduct of the war on the side 
 of the rebellion, in order that from all this we may be prepared 
 for the evidence presented to the world through the Commission, 
 sustaining the grave charges of the government. 
 
 There was no doubt an element, perhaps a large element of the 
 population of the Southern States, that was in full sympathy with 
 this policy ; but such a policy could only have been abhorrent to 
 the honorable foe who bravely confronted us on the field of con- 
 flict. It was the stay-at-home-and-fight element that sanctioned 
 these atrocities. War is cruel when conducted on the strictest 
 rules of civilized warfare. War is destructive ; it is harsh and 
 unrelenting. Foeman must meet foeman with his steel. It is a 
 game in which human life is always the price of success and the 
 cost of failure. The enemy must be met and overcome ; his 
 resources must be reached and cut off if it can be done, thus 
 starving him into submission, as a more humane way of getting the 
 victory over him than by taking his life. But amongst civilized 
 people no enemy is to be deprived of life but the armed and 
 active foe in the field, in honorable and open combat, except for 
 crime. The lives of women, children, prisoners of war, and of 
 non-combatants generally, must be held sacred. Thus we see 
 how much the horrors of war have been mitigated by the more 
 enlightened sentiments and Christian morality of the world's pres- 
 ent state of civilization. When these shall have done their perfect 
 work, wars will cease. The time will yet come when men shall 
 learn war no more. May God hasten the day. 
 
 In charging Jefferson Davis, and those associated with him in 
 the conduct of the war with an utter disregard of the laws of war, 
 and of being guilty of atrocities that are only matched in savage 
 life, I wish again to make a distinct disclaimer in behalf of those 
 who fought, and of those who conducted his operations in the 
 field. Whilst I abhor their construction of the Constitution and 
 theory of the union of the States as destructive of the hopes of 
 liberty and of free government, tending continually to disintegra- 
 tion, and making the idea of a nation an impossibility, I admire 
 and honor the courage and bravery with which they maintained
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 137 
 
 their theory, and accord to them the honor, as well as the courage 
 of true soldiers. 
 
 To them the idea of winning success by the means we have had 
 under consideration, and for which we have found the political 
 leaders of the rebellion responsible, including the highest officer of 
 the Confederacy, would have been as abhorrent as to myself. Not 
 a word that I have written can tarnish the fame of the true soldier ; 
 and I have carefully avoided charging anything against even the 
 politicians of the Confederacy that is not sustained by indisputa- 
 ble evidence. Considered morally, their methods can never be 
 justified ; yet it was by these methods, with assassination added, 
 that the political leaders of the rebellion sought to obtain success, 
 and because of this, must for all time in history fall under the 
 condemnation of the enlightened Christian conscience of the 
 world. That they were guilty of all these things has been 
 abundantly proven ; but as we shall see, the evidence has not yet 
 been exhausted. They attempt to shield themselves under the 
 claim of justifiable retaliation. Retaliation for what? They 
 answer, " The atrocities committed by Sheridan in the Shenan- 
 doah Valley." Let us consider this question for a moment. It 
 was the fortune of the writer to be serving under Sheridan at the 
 time these alleged atrocities were committed, and to be an eye- 
 witness of them. What did Sheridan do? He burnt all the stack- 
 yards and barns containing grain and hay, and all the mills and 
 factories found in the valley from above Harrisonburg on down to 
 near Winchester, or perhaps lower down than that. He also 
 appropriated all the horses, cattle, sheep, etc., that could have 
 been made available for the support and aid of an enemy. He 
 dealt merely with property, and that such property alone as would 
 have enabled General Lee again to have threatened the national 
 capital by an invading foe by this route, as he had twice, or 
 oftener, done before, thus making it necessary to employ a large 
 force from our army in guarding this route. General Grant deter- 
 mined to render this division of his forces unnecessary, by render- 
 ing the valley impracticable to Lee by this destruction of the 
 abundant supplies that it furnished, in order that he might have 
 the benefit of Sheridan's forces in his investment of Richmond.
 
 138 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 It was simply the destruction of property by which the rebellion 
 could sustain itself, and thus prolong its existence, in order to 
 shorten the war, and thus save the expenditure of human life. 
 There was no property destroyed or confiscated but such as could 
 be used for the subsistence and movements of an army. It was 
 simply a question of shortening the war, and thus economizing 
 human life by the destruction of property, and so was a measure 
 fully justified by the laws and usages of war. Sheridan acted 
 under Grant's orders in this matter, and his acts were only atrocious 
 as war itself is atrocious, and can never serve as a justification 
 of schemes that in every instance involved the lives of non-com- 
 batants, and even of women and children. All of this destruc- 
 tion of property in the Shenandoah Valley by Sheridan was done, 
 and accounted for, strictly in accordance with the laws and usages 
 of war, and has never been challenged by the civilized nations of 
 the world as an unwarranted atrocity. It was harsh in the extreme ; 
 but as a military necessity it was justifiable. It included in its 
 object mercy towards the lives of men. 
 
 As the cause of the Confederacy began to lose ground in the 
 summer of 1864, and the signal success of our arms made it clear 
 that it would not be able to maintain the fight to a successful 
 close, the political leaders became desperate and reckless as to the 
 means to which they resorted. The City Point explosion, the burn- 
 ing of a number of steamboats on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, 
 and the burning of a soldiers', or United States, hospital at Louis- 
 ville, Ky., were amongst the occurrences of that eventful summer. 
 The following extract from the report of John Maxwell to Cap- 
 tain Z. McDaniel, commanding Torpedo Company, explains the 
 City Point explosion : 
 
 "Captain: I have the honor to report that in obedience to 
 your order, and with the means and equipments furnished me by 
 you, I left this city (Richmond) 26th July last for the line of the 
 James River, to operate with the ' hozological torpedo ' against the 
 enemy's vessels navigating that river. I had with me Mr. R. K. 
 Dillard, who was well acquainted with the localities, and whose 
 services I engaged for the expedition. 
 
 " On arriving in Isle of Wight County, on the 2d of August,
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 139 
 
 we learned of immense supplies of stores being landed at City 
 Point; and for the purpose, by stratagem, of introducing our 
 machine upon the vessels there discharging stores, started for 
 that point. We reached there before day-break on the 9th of 
 August last, having travelled mostly by night, and crawled upon 
 our knees to pass the east picket line. Requesting my companion 
 to remain behind about half a mile, I approached cautiously the 
 wharf, with my machine and powder covered by. a small box. 
 Finding the captain had come ashore from a barge then at the 
 wharf, I seized the occasion to hurry forward with my box. 
 Being halted by one of the wharf sentinels, I succeeded in pass- 
 ing him by representing that the captain had ordered me to con- 
 vey the box on board. Hailing a man from the barge, I put the 
 machine in motion, and gave it in his charge. He carried it 
 aboard. The machine contained about twelve pounds of powder. 
 Rejoining my companion we retired to a safe distance to witness 
 the effect of our effort. 
 
 " In about an hour the explosion took place. Its effect was com- 
 municated to another barge beyond the one operated upon, and 
 also to a large wharf building containing their stores (enemy's), 
 which was totally destroyed. The scene was terriffic, and the 
 effect deafened my companion to an extent from which he has 
 not recovered. My own person was severely shocked, but I am 
 thankful to Providence that we have both escaped without injury. 
 We obtained and enclose slips from the enemy's newspapers, which 
 afford their testimony of the terrible effects of the blow. The 
 enemy estimate the loss of life at fifty-eight killed and one hun- 
 dred and twenty-six wounded, but we have reason to believe it 
 greatly exceeded that. 
 
 " The pecuniary damage we heard estimated at four millions of 
 dollars ; but of course we can give you no account of the extent of 
 it exactly. I may be permitted, Captain, here to remark that a 
 party of ladies, it seems, were killed by this explosion. It is sad- 
 dening to me to realize the fact that the terrible effects of war [he 
 should have added as thus conducted] induce such consequences ; 
 but when I remember the ordeal to which our own women have 
 been submitted, and the barbarities of the enemy's crusade against
 
 140 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 us and them, my feelings are relieved by the reflection that whilst 
 this catastrophe was not intended by us, it amounts only, in the 
 providence of God, to just retribution" 
 
 Hear the pious scoundrel salving his conscience with the old 
 cry of " just retribution ! " 
 
 The following will explain the agency by which boats on the 
 Ohio and Mississippi rivers, and the United States Hospital at 
 Louisville, Ky., were burned. It is the testimony of Edward 
 Frazier before the Commission: 
 
 " I am a steamboat man, and have been making St. Louis my 
 home for the last nine or ten years. During 1864 I knew of 
 the operations of Tucker, Minor Majors, Thomas L. Clark, and 
 Colonel Barrett, of Missouri, for burning boats carrying govern- 
 ment freight, transports, and other vessels on the Ohio and Miss- 
 issippi and other rivers. These men were in the service of the 
 Confederate Government. I knew of the following steamboats 
 having been burned by the operations of these parties : the ' Im- 
 perial,' ' Hiawatha,' the ' Robert Campbell,' the ' Louisville,' the 
 ' Daniel G. Taylor,' and others, besides some in New Orleans 
 that I do not know the names of. The ' Imperial ' was one of 
 the largest and finest transports on the western waters. In the 
 case of the burning of the ' Robert Campbell,' which was 
 destroyed in the stream when under way, at Milikin's Bend, 
 twenty-five- miles above Vicksburg, there was a considerable loss 
 of life. The agent who destroyed this boat was on board. These 
 boats were all owned by private individuals. The operations of 
 these men were to include government hospitals, store-houses, 
 and everything appertaining to the enemy. A United States 
 hospital at Louisville was burned in June or July of 1 864. I do 
 not know who burned it, but a man named Dillingham claimed 
 compensation for it. I was in Richmond from the 2Oth to the 
 25th or 26th of August last, when I had an interview with the rebel 
 Secretary of War, the Secretary of State, and Mr. Jefferson Davis. 
 Thomas L. Clark, Dillingham, and myself, called there in connec- 
 tion with the boat burning, and put in claims to Mr. James A. 
 Seddon, the rebel Secretary of War. Mr. Clark introduced me 
 to Mr. Seddon. He told me that he had thrown up that business,
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 141 
 
 that it was now in the hands of Mr. Benjamin. We went to him, 
 and Mr. Benjamin looked at the papers we brought him, and 
 asked me if I knew anything about them. I told him that I did, 
 and that I believed they were all right. He asked me if 'I was 
 from St. Louis. I told him I was. He then asked Mr. Clark if 
 he knew me to be all right, and he said I had been represented 
 to him by Mr. Majors as being all right. Mr. Benjamin told us 
 all three to call the next day. We did so, when he said he had 
 shown these papers to Jefferson Davis, and he (Benjamin) wanted 
 to know if we would not take thirty thousand dollars and sign 
 receipts in full. We told him we would not. Mr. Benjamin then 
 said that if Dillingham was to claim this in Louisville, he wanted 
 a statement of it. We went back to the hotel, and I wrote the 
 statement myself. It read that Mr. Dillingham had been hired 
 by General Polk, and that he had been sent to Louisville expressly 
 to do that work; namely, to burn the hospital. It was then 
 talked over with Mr. Benjamin, and we made a settlement with 
 him for fifty thousand dollars ; thirty-five thousand dollars down 
 in gold, and fifteen thousand dollars on deposits, to be paid in 
 four months, provided the claims proved correct. The money 
 was paid by a draft on Columbia for thirty-four thousand, eight 
 hundred dollars, in gold, and two hundred dollars in gold we got 
 in Richmond. We received the gold on the draft at Columbia. 
 Whilst in Richmond, Mr. Benjamin told me that Mr. Davis 
 wanted to see me. I went in with Mr. Benjamin to see Mr. Davis, 
 and we sat and talked. The conversation first was about what 
 was called the Long Bridge, between Nashville and Chattanooga. 
 Mr. Davis wanted to know what I thought about destroying it. 
 He said they had been thinking of it, and of sending some one to 
 have it done. I told him I knew of the bridge, though I did not, 
 for I had never been there, but did not know what to think 
 about destroying it. He said I had better study it over. Finally 
 I told him I thought it could be done. Mr. Benjamin, I believe 
 it was, first remarked that he would give four hundred thousand 
 dollars if that bridge was destroyed, and asked me if I would 
 take charge of it. I told him I would not unless the passes 
 were taken away from those men that were now down there, and
 
 142 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Mr. Davis said it should be done. The conversation then turned 
 on the burning of the steamboats. I told Mr. Davis that I did 
 not think it was any use burning steamboats, and he said no, he 
 was gt)ing to have that stopped. The next day I saw an order 
 taking away passes issued on or before the 23d of August. These 
 passes were permits to do this kind of work. I presume Mr. 
 Davis knew that the money I received was for the work that I had 
 done; he knew that I had received money there. Mr. Davis 
 seemed fully aware of what we had done, and he did not condemn 
 it. Mr. Majors and Barrett belonged to an organization known as 
 the ' O. A. K.', or 'Order of American Knights.'" The witness 
 was asked to state, if he thought proper to do so, whether he was 
 also a member of that order ; but he declined to say. ' I under- 
 stood ' (said the witness) ' that Colonel Barrett held the position 
 of adjutant general of this organization, of the Sons of Liberty, for 
 the State of Illinois. I do not know that Majors and Barrett were 
 in Chicago in July last, but Mr. Majors left St. Louis either in 
 June or July, to go to Canada, and I presume went there by way 
 of Chicago." 
 
 Here again, we see the moral plane on which Davis and 
 Benjamin worked for the success of the Confederacy. We find 
 them employing and paying agents for burning boats, midstream, 
 regardless of the destruction of the lives of non-combatants, in- 
 cluding, most likely, women and children amongst the passengers 
 aboard ; burning a hospital filled with sick, wounded, and dying 
 soldiers, who, according to the laws of civilized warfare, are 
 entitled to the sacred protection of even the enemy, whether in or 
 out of their territory and possession. We have now found Davis 
 and his agents in Canada planning and carrying out schemes for 
 assassination or murder by wholesale, by spreading pestilence, 
 poisoning of reservoirs, burning cities, hospitals, and boats on 
 their way loaded with passengers, and by the use of explosives 
 murdering women. Human life, under any imaginable conditions 
 of existence, received no consideration at their hands if its sacrifice 
 held out to them any prospect of advancing their cause. 
 
 Another foul plot to murder prisoners of war held in Libby 
 Prison, right under the eyes of Davis and his Cabinet, is detailed
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 143 
 
 as follows by Erastus W. Ross, a witness before the Commis- 
 sion : 
 
 " I was in the service of the rebel government. I was con- 
 scripted and detailed as a clerk at Libby Prison, and never served 
 in the army. In March, 1864, General Kilpatrick was making a 
 raid in the direction of Richmond. About that time the prison 
 was mined. I saw the place where I was told the powder was 
 buried under the prison; it was in the middle of the building. 
 The powder was put there secretly in the night. I never saw it, 
 but I saw the fuse. It was put in the office. I was away at my 
 uncle's the night that the powder was put there, and was told of 
 it the next morning by one of the colored men at the prison. 
 There were two sentinels near the place to prevent any person 
 approaching it. The excavation made was about the size of a 
 barrel head, and the earth was thrown up loosely over it. Major 
 Turner, the commandant of the prison, had charge of the fuse. 
 He told me that the powder was there, and that the fuse was to 
 set it off; that it was put there for the security of the prisoners, 
 and if the army got in it was to be set off for the purpose of 
 blowing up the prison and the prisoners. The powder was 
 secretly taken out in May, and the whole building was then shut 
 up. The prisoners had all been sent to Macon, Ga. I sup- 
 pose the powder was placed there by the authority of General 
 Winder or the Secretary of War. Major Turner said he was 
 acting under the authority of the rebel war department, though 
 I never saw any written orders about it." 
 
 John Latouche testified as follows: " I was first lieutenant in 
 Company B, Twenty-fifth Virginia Battallion, C. S. A. I was 
 detailed to post duty in Richmond to regulate the details of the 
 guards of the military prisons there, and in March, 1864, I was 
 on duty at Libby Prison. Major Turner, the keeper of the 
 prison, told me that he was going to see General Winder about 
 the guard. On his return he told me that General Winder himself 
 had been to see the Secretary of War, and that they were going 
 to put powder under the prison. In the morning of the same 
 day the powder was brought. There were two kegs of about 
 twenty-five pounds each, and a box which contained about as
 
 144 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 
 much as the kegs. A hole was dug in the centre of the middle 
 
 basement, and the powder was put down there. The box when 
 put in just came level with the ground, and the place was covered 
 over with gravel. I did not see any fuse to it then. I placed a 
 sentry over this powder so that no accident might occur, and the 
 next day Major Turner, who had charge of the fuse, showed it to 
 us in his office ; he showed it to everybody there. It was a long 
 fuse made of gutta-percha, such a one as I had never seen before. 
 In May, I think it was, Major Turner went South, and all of the 
 prisoners were sent out of the Libby building proper to the 
 south ; and General Winder sent a note down to the office with 
 directions to take up the powder as privately or as secretly as 
 possible. I forget his exact words. The note was delivered into 
 my hands for the inspector of the prison, to whom I either gave 
 or sent it. I afterward heard Major Turner say that in the event 
 of the raiders coming into Richmond he would have blown up the 
 prison. I understood him to say those were his orders." 
 
 We are not left, however, to infer that this gunpowder plot, by 
 which the lives of twelve hundred Union officers held as prisoners 
 of war were to have been sacrificed in case Colonel Dahlgren 
 should have gotten into the city for the purpose of their libera- 
 tion, was authorized by the head of the rebel government. 
 
 The box turned over by General Johnson to General Schofield, 
 containing the archives of the Confederate government, contained 
 the proof that Jefferson Davis ordered these preparations to be 
 made, and that his subordinates had orders to carry the plot into 
 execution in the event of the contingency above referred to. 
 These archives also showed that in this he was sustained by the 
 committee of the rebel congress on the conduct of the war. 
 Pollard, also, in his history of the "Lost Cause," attempts to justify 
 this plot. In all this we see the debasing influence of human 
 bondage on the moral sense of a people. Who, except under the 
 influence of such a demoralization, could have planned for the 
 wholesale sacrifice of their prisoners of war? 
 
 Here we have Mr. Seddon, the rebel Secretary of War, of course 
 not on his own responsibility, but under the orders of his supe- 
 rior, Jefferson Davis, ordering the officer in charge of the pris-
 
 ATROCITIES NOT EMBRACED IN THE CHARGE. 145 
 
 oners of war in their possession to mine the building in which 
 they were confined, and in the event of a Yankee raid entering 
 the city, to blow up the building, and thus murder, at one fell 
 swoop, all the prisoners in it to prevent their being rescued and 
 taken back into the service. Need we wonder that an adminis- 
 tration that could deliberately prepare to murder its prisoners of 
 war rather than suffer their liberation under the fortunes of war, 
 should have deliberately planned for the destruction of its pris- 
 oners by the starvation and cruelties of Andersonville? 
 
 It gives me no pleasure to rehearse these things, but it is due to 
 the truth of history that they should be known. I desire to see a 
 speedy and complete reconciliation of these two sections of our 
 country ; and I have always rejoiced that we who faced each 
 other on the fields of deadly conflict, have, from the time of the 
 surrender of Lee's army, been ready to meet each other as friends 
 and brothers and fellow citizens of a common country. The 
 sight witnessed at Appomattox of the soldiers of our army empty- 
 ing their haversacks to satisfy the wants of men who but the 
 hour before stood confronting them as foes, but who now had laid 
 down their arms, worn out and famishing, was a glorious exhibi- 
 tion of the best side of our nature, and plainly said that though we 
 had been enemies in war in peace we would be friends, and fore- 
 shadowed the speedy reconciliation that has followed our terrible 
 strife, so far as the soldiers of the two armies are concerned. I 
 charge none of these things on these men. I fix the responsibility 
 for these things on the political leaders of the rebellion, and not 
 even on them indiscriminately but only on such of them as are 
 named in the charge and specifications under which, through the 
 medium of the Commission, they were arraigned before the world, 
 and the evidence of their guilt was produced. It is to show that 
 the government in so doing completely vindicated its dignity and 
 honor that I write. 
 
 If the acts of public men render them infamous in history, the 
 responsibility rests in their bad exercise of that freedom of will 
 that makes us responsible beings. 1 And in human affairs, bad 
 
 1 The archives of the rebel war department reveal the fact that the powder was 
 placed under the Libby Prison by order of Davis and Seddon, sanctioned by a com- 
 mittee of the rebel congress.
 
 146 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 examples should be held up as warnings, just as good examples 
 should be held up for imitation and encouragement. 
 
 We shall now approach a little more closely to the consideration 
 of the responsibility of Jefferson Davis and his Canada Cabinet 
 for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln ; and will show, we 
 think, by incontestible evidence, that they were co-conspirators 
 with Booth and his gang, or rather, that they originated and 
 concocted the plan, and that Booth and his followers were merely 
 their hired assassins for the accomplishment of their purposes.
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SUSTAIN ITS 
 CHARGE AND SPECIFICATIONS. 
 
 THE following letter was found in the box turned over by 
 General Joseph A. Johnson, at Charlotte, N.C., to General Scho- 
 field, and said to contain the archives of the Confederate govern- 
 ment: 
 
 MONTGOMERY, WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, VA. 
 
 To His EXCELLENCY, the President of the Confederate States of America : 
 
 DEAR SIR: I have been thinking for some time that I would make this communica- 
 tion to you, but have been deterred from doing so on account of ill health. I now offer 
 you my services, and if you will favor me in my designs, I will proceed, as soon as 
 my health will permit, to rid my country of some of her deadliest enemies, by striking 
 at the very heart's blood of those who seek to enchain her in slavery. I consider 
 nothing dishonorable having such a tendency. All I ask of you is to favor me by 
 granting me the necessary passes, etc., on which to travel while in the jurisdiction of 
 the Confederate government. I am perfectly familiar with the North, and feel con- 
 fident I can execute anything I undertake. I am just returned from within their 
 lines. I am a lieutenant in General Duke's command, and I was on the raid last 
 June in Kentucky under General John H. Morgan. I and all of my command except- 
 ing about three or four, and two commissioned officers, were taken prisoners ; but 
 finding a good opportunity, while being taken to prison, I made my escape from them. 
 Dressing myself in the garb of a citizen, I attempted to pass through the mountains, 
 but finding that impossible, narrowly escaping two or three times from being retaken, 
 I shaped my course north, and went through to the Canadas, from where, by the assist- 
 ance of Colonel Holcomb, I succeeded in making my way around and through the 
 blockade; but having yellow fever, etc., at Bermuda, I have been rendered unfit for 
 service since my arrival. I was reared up m the State of Alabama, and educated in its 
 university. Both the Secretary of War and his assistant, Judge Campbell, are per- 
 sonally acquainted with my father, William J. Alston, of the fifth Congressional Dis- 
 trict of Alabama, having served in the time of the old Congress, in the years 1849-50 
 and 1851. If I do anything for you, I shall expect your full confidence in return. If 
 you do this, I can render you and my country very important service. Let me hear 
 from you soon. I am anxious to be doing something, and having no command at 
 present, all, or nearly all, being in garrison, I desire that you favor me in this a short 
 
 147
 
 148 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 time. I would like to have a personal interview with you, in order to perfect the 
 arrangements before starting. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 LIEUTENANT W. ALSTON. 
 
 This letter, it will be observed, is without date ; but the box in 
 which it was found was marked, " Adjutant and Inspector Gen- 
 eral's Office; letters received July to December, 1864." Lieu- 
 tenant Alston was captured in Kentucky in June, 1864, and so, 
 in making his escape through Canada, made the acquaintance of 
 the rebel agents there, just at the time that they were full of 
 the assassination scheme. It was probably from his intercourse 
 with them that he became infatuated with this idea, although he 
 does not give them the credit of it. He seems to have been an 
 ambitious youth who desired to impress the rebel President with 
 the idea that this was an original scheme of his own. Mark how 
 unblushingly he opens his mind to Davis in presenting his plot ! 
 It is nothing less than " striking at the heart's blood of some of 
 his country's deadliest foes," of whom everybody then knew that 
 Abraham Lincoln was universally regarded in the South as 
 chief. It is a plain offer to aid his country's cause by entering 
 upon the policy of assassinating the loyal men of the country 
 whose official duty required them to put down the rebellion. 
 He considers nothing dishonorable that tends to accomplish 
 this. He does not merely propose to strike at the heart's blood 
 of Abraham Lincoln. No ; like the Canada conspirators, he has a 
 more comprehensive scheme. Did Jefferson Davis feel insulted 
 by being thought capable of giving his sanction to such a foul and 
 dishonorable proposition? Let us see. 
 
 The following is his endorsement put upon it : 
 
 / 
 
 INDORSEMENT. 
 
 A. i. 390. Lieut. W. Alston, Montgomery, Sulphur Springs, Va. (no date). Is 
 Lieutenant in General Duke's command. Accompanied raid into Kentucky and was 
 captured, but escaped into Canada, from whence he found his way back. Been in bad 
 health. Now offers his services to rid the country of some of its deadliest enemies. 
 Asks for papers to permit him to travel within the jurisdiction of this government.
 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 149 
 
 Would like to have an interview and explain. Respectfully referred, by direction of 
 
 the President, to the Honorable Secretary of War. 
 
 BURTON N. HARRISON, 
 
 Private Secretary. 
 Received November igth, 1864. 
 Recorded book A.A.G.O., December i6th, 1864. 
 A.G. for attention. 
 
 By order of J. A. CAMPBELL, A.S.W. 
 
 The handwriting of the private secretary of Jefferson Davis, 
 Burton N. Harrison, and of the Assistant Secretary of War, J. A. 
 Campbell, in the endorsements, was verified before the Commis- 
 sion by Lewis W. Chamberlain, who had been a clerk in the war 
 department at Richmond, and was well acquainted with the hand- 
 writing of both of these gentlemen. 
 
 From the consideration given by the rebel President, as shown 
 by these careful and favorable endorsements, would it be unreason- 
 able to conclude that Lieutenant Alston was granted the interview 
 that he desired, and that, armed with the permission and authority 
 of the rebel chief, he became one of the active participants in the 
 closing scenes of the drama? 
 
 We have other evidence that at this very time the mind of Jef- 
 ferson Davis was turned in this direction, and that he was inciting 
 his agents in Canada to turn their attention to a grand political 
 scheme of wholesale assassinations. 
 
 To show the moral obtundity of the political stay-at-home-and- 
 fight rebels about this time, I will reproduce an advertisement of 
 this proposition to assassinate President Lincoln and the other 
 civil officers of the government, that was published in the Selma 
 (Alabama) Dispatch, in December, 1864, under the caption 
 
 "MILLION DOLLARS FOR ASSASSINATION 
 
 " One million dollars wanted to have peace by the ist of March. If the citizens of 
 the Southern Confederacy will furnish me with the cash, or good securities for the sum 
 of one million dollars, I will cause the lives of Abraham Lincoln, William H. Seward, 
 and Andrew Johnson to be taken by the ist of March next. This will give us peace, 
 and satisfy the world that cruel tyrants cannot live in a land of liberty. If this is not 
 accomplished, nothing will be claimed beyond the sum of fifty thousand dollars in 
 advance, which is supposed to be necessary to reach and slaughter the three villains. 
 I will give, myself, one thousand dollars towards this patriotic purpose. Every one 
 wishing to contribute will address Box X, Cahawba, Alabama. December ist, 1864."
 
 150 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 This advertisement was proven by compositors in the Dispatch 
 office to have been put in that paper by Mr. G. W. Gale, a law- 
 yer of considerable reputation, and that the copy was in his hand- 
 writing, which was well known at that office. My impression is 
 that several of the Richmond papers reproduced this advertisement, 
 as also many other papers in the Confederacy. The treasonable 
 purpose to overthrow the Constitution by the assassination of the 
 President, Vice-President, and Secretary of State shows that the 
 plan had been maturely considered in the light of the condi- 
 tions that would render it most effective in securing the object in 
 view, and that it was a deep political scheme to give the rebellion 
 a new lease of life, and put it on its feet again under more favor- 
 able conditions for success. I have already given incidentally, and 
 in a fragmentary way, glimpses of the testimony on which the 
 charges of the government were founded. I will now present in 
 a connected form the testimony bearing on the question. 
 
 Richard Montgomery testified before the Commission that 
 Thompson said to him in the summer of 1864 that he had his 
 friends all over the North, and that he could have anybody put out 
 of his way that he chose ; that he would only have to point out the 
 man that he considered in his way, and his friends would remove 
 him, and would consider it no crime when done for the cause of 
 the Confederacy. Clay also, on being told by Montgomery what 
 Thompson had said, replied, " That is so ; we are all devoted to our 
 cause and ready to go any lengths to do anything in the world 
 to serve our cause." Thompson said his friends would do this and 
 not let him know anything about it if necessary. That this was 
 not mere bragadocio is evident from the fact that Montgomery 
 was accepted by Thompson as a confederate in full sympathy with 
 himself, and entitled to his fullest confidence. 
 
 Merritt testified that he first heard of the assassination plot in 
 October or November, 1864, when he was told by Young, in reply 
 to an inquiry of Merritt in regard to a contemplated raid : " We 
 have something on the tapis of much more importance than any 
 raids we have made, or can make." He said, " It was determined 
 that Old Abe should never be inaugurated." He said they had 
 plenty of friends in Washington ; and speaking of Mr. Lincoln, he
 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 151 
 
 called him a damned old tyrant. Merritt was afterwards intro- 
 duced to George N. Sanders by Colonel Steele, and in the course of 
 the conversation that ensued, Steele said, " the damned old tyrant 
 will never serve another term if he is elected." Sanders replied, 
 "he (Lincoln) would have to keep himself mighty close if he did 
 serve another term." In January, 1865, Thompson told Mont- 
 gomery that a proposition had been made to him to rid the world 
 of the tyrant Lincoln, Stanton, Grant, and some others. He said 
 he knew the men that made the proposition to be bold, daring men, 
 and able to execute anything they would undertake without regard 
 to cost. He said he was in favor of the proposition, but had con- 
 cluded to defer giving his answer until he should have consulted 
 with his government at Richmond ; and that he was only waiting 
 for their approval ; adding that he thought it would be a great 
 blessing to the people, both North and South, to have these men 
 killed. Beverly Tucker, in a conversation with Montgomery after the 
 assassination, recounting the many wrongs the South had received 
 at the hands of Mr. Lincoln, said, " that he deserved his death, and 
 it was a pity he had not met it long ago ; that it was too bad that 
 the boys had not been allowed to act when they wanted to." 
 
 Conover testified that he saw Booth in Montreal about the latter 
 part of October, 1864. He was strutting about the St. Lawrence 
 Hall, playing billiards, etc., but occasionally was to be seen in con- 
 fidential intercourse with Sanders and Thompson. 
 
 Whilst in Canada at this time the plot to assassinate was fully 
 decided upon, as will be shown by the " Selby letter" subjoined. 
 This letter was picked up in a street car in New York by a couple 
 of ladies, one of whom, Mrs. Mary Hudspeth, testified before the 
 Commission as follows: " In November last, after the presidential 
 election, and on the day that General Butler left New York, as I 
 was riding on the Third Avenue cars in New York City, I over- 
 heard a conversation of two men. They were talking most earn- 
 estly. One of them said he would leave for Washington day after 
 to-morrow. The other was going to Newburg or New Berne that 
 night. One of the two was a young man with false whiskers. This 
 I observed when a jolt of the car pushed hjs hat forward and at the 
 same time pushed his whiskers, by which I observed that the front
 
 152 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 face was darker than it was under the whiskers. Judging by his 
 conversation, he was a young man of education. The other, whose 
 name was Johnson, was not. I noticed that the hand of the younger 
 man was very beautiful, and showed that he had led a life of ease 
 and not of labor. 
 
 " They exchanged letters whilst in the car. When the one who 
 had the false whiskers put back the letters in his pocket, I saw a 
 pistol in his belt. I overheard the younger one say that he would 
 leave for Washington the day after to-morrow. The other was 
 very angry because it had not fallen on him to go to Washington. 
 Both left the cars before I did. After they had left, my daughter, 
 who was with me, picked up a letter which was lying on the floor 
 of the car, immediately under where they sat, and gave it to me, 
 and I, thinking it was mine, as I had letters of my own to post at 
 the Nassau Street Post-office, took it without noticing that it was 
 not one of my own. When I got to the brokers, where I was 
 going with some gold, I noticed an envelope with two letters in it. 
 These are the letters, and both were contained in one envelope. 
 After I examined the letters and found their character, I took 
 them first to General Scott, who asked me to read them to him. 
 He said he thought they were of great importance, and asked me 
 to take them to General Dix. I did so. The letters are as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " DEAR Louis: The time has at last come that we have all so wished for, and 
 upon you everything depends. As it was decided before you left, we were to cast lots. 
 Accordingly we did so, and you are to be the Charlotte Corday of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury. When you remember the fearful, solemn vow that was taken by us you will feel 
 there is no drawback Abe must die, and now. You can choose your weapons the 
 cup, the knife, the bullet. The cup failed us once, and might again. Johnson, who 
 will give this, has been like an enraged demon since the meeting because it has not 
 fallen upon him to rid the world of the monster. He says the blood of his gray-haired 
 father and his noble brother call on him for revenge, and revenge he will have; if he 
 cannot wreak it upon the fountain head, he will upon some of the blood-thirsty generals. 
 Butler would suit him. As our plans were all concocted and well arranged, we sep- 
 arated; and as I am writing on my way to Detroit, I will only say that all rests upon 
 you. You know where to find your friends. Your disguises are so perfect and com- 
 plete, that without one knew your face no police telegraphic despatch would catch you. 
 The English gentleman, Harcourt, must not act hastily. Remember he has ten days. 
 Strike for your home, strike for your country; bide your time, but strike sure. Get 
 introduced, congratulate him, listen to his stories not many more will the brute tell 
 to earthly friends. Do anything but fail, and meet us at the appointed place within
 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 153 
 
 the fortnight. Inclose this note, together with one of poor Leenea. I will give the 
 reason for this when we meet. Return by Johnson. I wish I could go to you, but 
 duty calls me to the West; you will probably hear from me in Washington. Sanders 
 
 is doing us no good in Canada. 
 
 " Believe me your brother in love, 
 
 "CHARLES SELBY." 
 
 " ST. Louis, October zist, 1864. 
 
 " DEAREST HUSBAND: Why do you not come home? You left me for ten days 
 only, and now you have been from home more than two weeks. In that long time, 
 only sent me one short note a few cold words and a check Jor money, which I did 
 not require. What has come over you? Have you forgotten your wife and child? 
 Baby calls for papa until my heart aches. We are so lonely without you. I have written 
 to you again and again, and, as a last resource, yesterday wrote to Charlie, begging 
 him to see you and tell you to come home. I am so ill not able to leave my room; 
 if I was, I would go to you wherever you were, if in this world. Mamma says I must 
 not write any more, as I am too weak. Louis, darling, do not stay away any longer 
 from your heart-broken wife, 
 
 " LEENEA." 
 
 General Dix sent these letters to the War Department at Wash- 
 ington. They were given to President Lincoln, who put them in 
 an envelope, marked it " Assassination," and laid it away in his 
 desk, where it was found after his death. Mrs. Hudspeth testified 
 that she picked these letters up on the day that General Butler 
 left New York. General Butler had orders to leave on the nth 
 of November, but upon application got permission to remain until 
 the 1 4th. Booth left Washington on the early morning train on 
 November I ith, which would put him into New York on the after- 
 noon of that day. Here he met his co-conspirator, Johnson, on 
 the cars, and in exchanging letters with him, dropped these letters 
 without noticing it. The Leenea letter was to have been returned 
 by Johnson. He was to leave for Washington on the day after 
 to-morrow, which, reckoning from the iith, would be the I3th. 
 The hotel register accounts for him again at Washington on the 
 1 4th in the early part of the evening. That the young man 
 described by Mrs. Hudspeth was John Wilkes Booth was shown 
 by her recognition of his photograph, shown to her in the pres- 
 ence of the Commission, when she declared that that was the same 
 face. 1 
 
 1 The Charles Selby letter was proven to be in the handwriting of John Wilkes 
 Booth by experts, on comparison, on the trial of John H. Surratt.
 
 154 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 It was also shown by the testimony of Samuel Knapp Chester, the 
 actor, that Booth was in New York about this time, laboring with 
 Chester in the most urgent manner to draw him into the conspiracy. 
 It is true he represented to him that the purpose was to capture the 
 President, and carry him a prisoner to Richmond ; that this feat 
 was to be performed at Ford's Theatre in Washington, and that 
 Chester's part in it would be the easy one of simply opening the 
 door of exit on a given signal ; but can any sane man believe that 
 this was his purpose ? The impracticability of this proposition could 
 not but have been as apparent to Booth as it was to Chester, who 
 begged Booth, finally, to never mention the subject to him again. 
 It is evident Booth intended to withhold from Chester his real 
 purpose until he could get him irrevocably committed to the 
 conspiracy. The letter which he had dropped, and which I have 
 given above, 'reveals the real purpose of the conspiracy. It 
 will be seen by this letter that it was in contemplation at that 
 time to act at once, or at least as sqon as a good opportu- 
 nity should be found, or could be made. He who was "to be 
 the Charlotte Corday of the nineteenth century " had his choice 
 as to the weapons he should use ; but whether it should be the 
 cup, the knife, or the bullet, it simply meant death. Why was 
 not the purpose carried out at that time as arranged for at the 
 meeting to which the letter refers? As will be shown by the sub- 
 sequent testimony, the assassins were restrained from present action 
 by the agents of the rebel government in Canada, who desired to 
 have explicit sanction to the arrangements they had made as to 
 the compensation, and authority for the expenditure it involved. 
 
 Let us see now how the testimony connects the rebel agents in 
 Canada with this meeting that was held in the latter part of Octo- 
 ber, or first of November, 1864, and with its conclusions, which 
 resulted in arrangements for these assassinations. Montgomery 
 testified that in January, 1865, Jacob Thompson told him that a 
 proposition had been made to him to rid the world of the tyrant 
 Lincoln, Stanton, Grant, and some others. The men who had 
 made the proposition, he said, he knew to be bold, daring men, 
 and able to execute anything they would undertake without regard 
 to cost. He said he was in favor of the proposition but had
 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 155 
 
 determined to defer his answer until he had consulted with his 
 government at Richmond, and he was then only waiting their 
 approval, adding that he thought it would be a blessing to the 
 people, both North and South, to have these men killed. A few 
 days after the. assassination, Montgomery had a conversation with 
 Beverly Tucker in Montreal. He said a great deal about the 
 wrongs the South had received at the hands of Mr. Lincoln, and 
 that he deserved his death, and it was a pity he had not met with 
 it long ago. He said " It was too bad that the boys had not been 
 allowed to act when they wanted to." Thus we see that " the 
 boys " were kept back from the execution of the plot for which 
 they had made ready late in October, or early in November, at 
 the meeting referred to in the Selby letter, by Thompson and his 
 clique, who had concluded to defer it until they should have 
 obtained the sanction of their government at Richmond to their 
 arrangements, which no doubt involved the expenditure of a large 
 sum of money. Montgomery at this time related a portion of the 
 conversation with Thompson, given above, to William C. Cleary, 
 who was Thompson's confidential secretary, when Cleary told him 
 that Booth was one of the men to whom Thompson referred; and 
 speaking of the assassination, he said " It was too bad that the 
 whole work had not been done," adding, "They had better look 
 out; we have not done yet." Cleary told Montgomery during 
 this conversation that Booth had been there visiting Thompson 
 twice in the winter ; the last time he thought was in December. 
 
 That Cleary was well acquainted with all that Thompson, 
 Tucker, and Clay were doing is clear from the relation Ae sus- 
 tained to Thompson ; and Thompson himself told Montgomery 
 that Cleary was posted in all his affairs, and that if he (Mont- 
 gomery) sought him at any time when he was absent, he could 
 confide his business to Cleary. 
 
 Conover testified that he called on Thompson, in the early part 
 of February, 1865, to make some inquiry about the intended raid 
 on Ogdensburg, when Thompson said to him, " There is a bet- 
 ter opportunity, a better chance to immortalize yourself and save 
 your country." Conover replied that he was willing to do any- 
 thing to save the country. Thompson then said, " Some of our
 
 156 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 boys are going to play a grand joke on Abe and Andy." Upon 
 Conover asking him for a further explanation, he said, " It was to 
 kill them, or, rather, to remove them from office." He said, " it 
 was only removing them from office ; that the killing of a tyrant 
 was no murder." He told Conover then, or subsequently, that 
 he had conferred a commission on Booth for this purpose, and 
 would commission all who engaged in it, so that whether it suc- 
 ceeded or failed, if they escaped to Canada, they could not be 
 claimed under the extradition treaty. The Confederate govern- 
 ment kept these Canada agents supplied with commissions in 
 blank, to be filled up by them at their pleasure, to cover cases 
 like these. In this conversation of Thompson with Conover, in 
 February, in which he was endeavoring to enlist Conover in the 
 plot, he argued that killing a tyrant in such a case was no mur- 
 der, and asked him if he had ever read the work entitled, "Kill- 
 ing no Murder," a letter addressed by Colonel Titus to Oliver 
 Cromwell. Mr. Hamlin was to have been included in the scheme, 
 had it been put into execution before the 4th of March. In a sub- 
 sequent conversation in April, Mr. Hamlin was omitted, and Vice- 
 President Johnson put in his place. We here again see the political 
 intent of this scheme, in that it was the office, not the man, that 
 was really the subject of the blow. 
 
 Merritt testified to an interview he had with Harper, Caldwell, 
 Randall, Charles Holt, and a man called " Texas," at the Queen's 
 Hotel, in Toronto, on the 6th of April, 1865. Harper said 
 they were "going to the States, and were going to kick up the 
 damnedest row that had ever been heard of." He said to Merritt, 
 an hour or two afterwards, that " if he (Merritt) did not hear of 
 the death of Old Abe, and the Vice-President, and General Dix 
 in less than ten days he might put him down as a damned fool. 
 We have now had abundant proof that Thompson, Clay, Tucker, 
 Sanders, Cleary, etc., were guilty of combining, confederating, and 
 conspiring with Booth, and the others, to assassinate Abraham 
 Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, William H. Seward, etc. ; that this 
 plot originated with them, and that they diligently prosecuted 
 the work of preparation for it from October, 1864, until its denoue- 
 ment, in April, 1865. It appears to have engrossed their minds;
 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 157 
 
 it was the great subject of conversation in all of their secret con- 
 claves, the great burden of all their thoughts, the very height of 
 their ambition. 
 
 Let us next see to what extent the head of the rebel Con- 
 federacy, Jefferson Davis, is implicated in it by the evidence. We 
 have already seen by his favorable reception of the Alston letter 
 and the endorsement he put upon it, that there was nothing in his 
 mind or moral nature that revolted at its base, cowardly, and 
 dishonorable proposition to " strike at the very heart's blood of 
 some of our country's deadliest foes." On the contrary, he refers 
 it to his Assistant Secretary of War, marked " For attention." 
 
 Having obtained this index to the state of his mind, we find 
 ourselves prepared to receive the testimony of Dr. J. B. Merritt as 
 to a letter read by Sanders in a meeting of rebels in Montreal, 
 about the middle of February, 1865, at which ten or fifteen per- 
 sons were present, amongst whom were Sanders, Colonel Steele, 
 Captain Scott, George Young, Byron Hill, Caldwell, Ford, Bene- 
 dict, Kirk, and Merritt. Sanders said he had received the letter 
 from " the President of our Confederacy " (meaning Jefferson 
 Davis). The substance of this letter was, that if the confederates 
 in Canada and in the States were willing to submit to be governed 
 by such a tyrant as Lincoln he did not wish to recognize them as 
 friends and associates, and he expressed his approbation of any 
 measures they might take to accomplish this object. It is true 
 Dr. Merritt did not see Davis's signature to the letter, and would 
 not have known it had he seen it, but the letter was first read 
 openly by Sanders, and then handed to the others, several of 
 whom read it, and none questioned either its author or authen- 
 ticity. Colonel Steele, Young, Hill, and Captain Scott read it, 
 and no objection was raised. After reading this letter, Sanders 
 went on to name a number of persons who were ready and will- 
 ing, as he said, to engage in the undertaking to remove the Presi- 
 dent, Vice-President, the cabinet, and some of the leading generals, 
 and said there was any amount of money to accomplish the pur- 
 pose. Amongst the persons whom he said thus stood ready to 
 engage in this work, he named Booth, George Harper, Charles 
 Caldwell, one Randall, and Harrison (by which name Surratt was
 
 I 5 8 ASSASSINA TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 known), and one or two others, one of whom they called "Plug 
 Tobacco," or " Port Tobacco." I will here remark that Atzerodt 
 was sometimes called by this latter name. Sanders said that Booth 
 was heart and soul in this project of assassination, and felt as much 
 as any person could feel, for the reason that he was a cousin to 
 Beall, who was hung in New York. He said that if they could 
 dispose of Mr. Lincoln it would be an easy matter to dispose of 
 Mr. Johnson ; he was such a drunken 'sot it would be an easy 
 matter to dispose of him in some of his drunken revelries. 
 
 When Sanders read the letter he also spoke of Mr. Seward. " I 
 inferred," says Dr. Merritt, " it was partially the language of the 
 letter. It was, I think, that if the President, Vice-President, and 
 Mr. Seward could be disposed of, it would be satisfying the people 
 of the North that they (the Southerners) had friends in the North, 
 and that peace could be obtained on better terms than could be 
 otherwise obtained." 
 
 It will be remembered that Booth sent to Chester fifty dollars 
 in a letter when trying to get him into the conspiracy, and that at 
 their final interview in February, Chester positively refused to have 
 anything to do with it, and returned to Booth the fifty dollars he 
 had received. Booth took the money, saying at the same time he 
 would not do so only he was short of funds. He had told Chester 
 that there was plenty of money in the affair, and that if he would 
 join he would never want for money again as long as he lived. 
 He said, however, as an excuse for taking back the fifty dollars he 
 had sent him, that he was very short of funds, and that he, or 
 some one, would have to go to Richmond to replenish. Wiech- 
 mann testified that John H. Surratt left Washington for Richmond 
 on the 2/th of March, and returned on the 3d of April; that on 
 his return he showed him nine, or eleven, twenty-dollar gold 
 pieces and sixty dollars in currency. Wiechmann was on intimate 
 terms of personal intercourse with Surratt, lived in the same house 
 with him, and was with him daily when at home, and expressed 
 himself as quite certain that he had no gold when he left Wash- 
 ington. He was not engaged in any business by which he could 
 make money. His mother had a very limited income from the 
 rent of her farm and tavern, and kept boarders to enable, her to
 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 159 
 
 make ends meet ; yet her son was constantly spending money in 
 traveling about, and so must have been supplied by his Canada 
 friends, whom he visited occasionally; and the chief calls he had 
 for expenditure appear to have arisen from his prosecution of their 
 schemes. Returning thus from- Richmond to Washington on the 
 3d of April, he left the same evening, according to Wiechmann, 
 for Canada. 
 
 Conover testified that he saw him in Montreal on the 6th or Jth 
 of April, in Mr. Thompson's room, and he learned from their 
 conversation that Surratt had just brought despatches from Rich- 
 mond to Mr. Thompson. One despatch was from Mr. Benjamin, 
 the rebel Secretary of State, and one, which x Conover thought 
 was a cipher despatch, from Jefferson Davis. Conover had previ- 
 ously been solicited by Thompson to participate in this work of 
 assassination, and so was freely admitted to their secret councils. 
 After reading these letters from Davis and Benjamin, Thompson, 
 laying his hands on them, said, " This makes the thing all right," 
 referring to the assent of the rebel authorities. Mr. Lincoln, Mr. 
 Johnson, the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, and the Secretary 
 of State, Mr. Seward, Judge Chase, and General Grant were to be 
 the victims. Mr. Thompson said this would leave the govern- 
 ment entirely without a head ; that there was no provision in the 
 Constitution of the United States by which they could elect 
 another President if these men were removed. The long waited 
 for authority to use funds which the rebel government had placed 
 to the credit of Mr. Thompson having been now secured in the 
 despatch from Mr. Benjamin, and his chief, Jefferson Davis, no 
 time was lost in putting the ball in motion. Mr. Thompson had 
 over six hundred thousand dollars to his credit in the Ontario 
 Bank of Montreal, and within two days after receiving these let- 
 ters, he drew on his deposit for over two hundred thousand 
 dollars. Conover saw Surratt in Montreal from the 6th or /th 
 to the 9th of April, and having been admitted to their confidence 
 by Thompson, on his receiving the despatches, was accepted by 
 Surratt as being one of themselves, and so he was under no restraint 
 in conversing with Conover. From the whole of his conversation 
 Conover inferred that he was to take his part, whatever that might
 
 160 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 be, in the conspiracy. We have already learned from Merritt's 
 testimony, that after Surratt's return to Canada on the 6th of 
 April there was an immediate bustle amongst those in Canada 
 who were to go to Washington to take part in the plot, and that 
 they began to leave on the 8th. The sinews of war having been 
 furnished, there was great eagerness, expressed and apparent, to 
 be off for the execution of the plot, and great boasting on the 
 part of those who went as to what they were going to do. Hav- 
 ing set their hired assassins in motion, Thompson and his gang 
 stood waiting in a great state of expectancy for the result. Con- 
 over testified that on the day before, or the very day of the assas- 
 sination, he had a conversation with William C. Cleary about the 
 rejoicing in the States over the surrender of Lee and the capture of 
 Richmond. Cleary remarked that they " would put the laugh on 
 the other side of their mouths in a day or two." "The conspiracy 
 was at that time talked of amongst them about as freely as one 
 would speak of the weather." 
 
 Jefferson Davis received his first intelligence of the assassination 
 at Charlotte, N.C., on the I9th of April, in a telegram from Gen- 
 eral Breckinridge, as follows : 
 
 "GREENSBORO', April 19, 1865. 
 "ffis Excellency President Davis : 
 
 " President Lincoln was assassinated in the theatre at Washington on the night of 
 the nth inst. Seward's house was entered on the same night and he was repeatedly 
 stabbed, and is probably mortally wounded. 
 
 [Signed] " JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE." 
 
 Davis received this telegram whilst harranguing in his grand- 
 iloquent style the crowd that had gathered about him, trying to 
 convince them that they were not whipped, and would yet suc- 
 ceed. At the conclusion of his speech, he read the telegram to 
 his auditors ; and after the manifestations of delight at the news 
 had subsided, he made this comment: "Well, if it were done, it 
 were better it were well done." 
 
 On the following day, when dining at the house of the witness, 
 Mr. Lewis F. Bates, with General Breckinridge, who had come to 
 pay him a visit, upon General Breckinridge saying in regard to 
 the assassination that he regretted it very much that it was very
 
 EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. i6l 
 
 unfortunate for the people of the South at that time Davis replied, 
 " Well, General, I don't know ; if it were done at all, it were better 
 that it were well done ; and if the same had been done to Andy 
 Johnson, the beast, and Secretary Stanton the job would then be 
 complete." Mark the disappointment of the man, and his bitter 
 dissatisfaction with the result of the plot to which he had so 
 recently given his sanction ! The telegram informed him of the 
 death of President Lincoln at the hands of an assassin, and gave 
 him strong grounds to conclude that Secretary Seward had been 
 put out of the way in the same way, and was dead ; but this does 
 not satisfy him. The work had not been well done because " Andy 
 Johnson " still lived, and so they had failed in their purpose to. 
 subvert the government. Hear him growl, " It were better it were 
 well done ; and if the same had only been done to Andy Johnson, 
 the beast, and to Secretary Stanton, the job would then have been 
 complete," and we might have taken fresh courage. His co-con- 
 spirators in Canada, when informed of the result, gnashed their 
 teeth in rage and disappointment. They expressed their regret 
 that " the boys had not been allowed to act when they wanted to," 
 and swore " they were not done with them yet." At first their 
 attitude was that of defiance, and their expressions of regret at 
 their failure to completely carry out their plot were mingled with 
 threatenings as to what they would yet do. They boasted while 
 the trial was going on that they had their friends at court, and 
 were kept posted from day to day as to what was going on. The 
 promptness of the government in bringing its prisoners before a 
 military commission for trial, making, it obvious that there was 
 to be no fooling in the case, together with their continued 
 disasters in the field, ending in the speedy collapse of the 
 rebellion and the capture of Jefferson Davis, brought them to 
 their senses, and to a realization of their own danger; and so 
 they at once commenced to destroy all documentary evidence of 
 their guilt. They declared in the presence of Montgomery, and 
 also of Merritt, that they had destroyed all their papers, lest some 
 Yankee should steal them and they should be brought up in a 
 possible future trial as evidence against them. 
 
 Now, let us consider what is lacking in this testimony to make
 
 1 62 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 the evidence of Davis's complicity in this crime complete. Noth- 
 ing, manifestly, but the letters referred to in the testimony ; the 
 fir^t, that read by Sanders, and credited by him to Davis, inciting 
 his friends in Canada to the commission of this crime, and point- 
 ing out specifically whom he would have them put out of the way ; 
 and the second, carried by Surratt to Thompson, on which Thomp- 
 son laid his hand and exclaimed, "This makes the thing all right ! " 
 But the absence of this missing link in the chain of evidence against 
 him is accounted for, and that in a way that makes the chain 
 even stronger, if possible, than if we were able to produce these 
 documents. 
 
 His co-conspirators in Canada declare to two witnesses and in 
 the presence of a third, George B. Hutchinson, that they have 
 destroyed all their papers ; giving as the reason for so doing, the 
 fear that some " Yankee son of a b h " might steal them, and 
 they should be used as evidence against them. 
 
 They burn their papers and then silently steal away. Exeunt 
 omnes.
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AGAINST DAVIS AND HIS 
 ASSOCIATES IN THIS CRIME. 
 
 INASMUCH as the testimony given above so completely sustains 
 the charge and specifications made by the government against 
 Jefferson Davis, George N. Sanders, Jacob Thompson, Beverly 
 Tucker, Clement C. Clay, William C. Cleary, et al, that had they 
 been before the Commission their successful defense could only 
 have been made by impeachment of the witnesses against them, I 
 will now show that this could not have been done. The principal 
 witnesses in this department of the trial, in which the Commission 
 was only used as a medium through which to present to the 
 world, before whom the charges were made, the evidence on 
 which they rested, were Richard Montgomery, Sanford Conover, 
 and Dr. James B. Merritt. Richard Montgomery was originally 
 a citizen of the city of New York, and was in the employ of the 
 government in its department of secret service. He was sent to 
 Canada, in the summer of 1864, to acquire information of the 
 plans and purposes of the rebels assembled in Canada. 
 
 He acted faithfully toward the government in this service, im- 
 parting to it all the information he obtained from time to time 
 that was of any importance. 
 
 He was a man of intelligence, good character, and was trusted 
 by the government. There was no attempt made before the Com- 
 mission to impeach his character for credibility. Of course the 
 purpose of his mission to Canada required him to gain the confi- 
 dence of the men whose movements he had been sent to watch, 
 and a knowledge of whose plans and purposes it was his duty to 
 obtain. To do this it was necessary not only that he should con- 
 ceal from them his real character and mission, but that he should 
 
 163
 
 164 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 be known to them as a man holding the same opinions and actu- 
 ated by the same purposes as themselves. To gain fully their con- 
 fidence was necessary to the success and usefulness of his mission. 
 This he could only do by making them believe that his sentiments 
 and purposes were in unison with their own. Of course this 
 involved duplicity and falsehood, yet it is held to be allowable in 
 war, because it may be made to contribute to success. A great deal 
 of the strategy in war consists in deceiving the enemy ; and if it is 
 ever allowable by falsehood to deceive, it was^ certainly allowable by 
 falsehood to deceive those who were playing false to their govern- 
 ment to accomplish its overthrow. They were secretly concocting 
 their schemes for the accomplishment of this purpose ; and to be 
 forearmed against them, it was necessary to be forewarned of 
 them. This could only be done by this kind of deception, which 
 is the same in its nature as that practiced by every spy. But 
 spies are used by both parties to the conflict in every war. War 
 is in its very nature atrociously wicked ; and so, its ethics cannot 
 be made to conform to the accepted morality that ought to govern 
 peaceful life. But whilst war is wicked and ought never to be 
 provoked, it is yet justifiable when it becomes necessary to the 
 preservation of the life of a nation. Upon the aggressor in this 
 case the responsibility belongs. On him the guilt falls. A 
 defensive war is always justifiable ; and so, according to the code 
 of military ethics, everything that is necessary to its successful 
 prosecution is also justifiable. This secret service department has 
 always been considered one of these indispensable necessities ; 
 and it has never been regarded as a just ground of impeachment 
 of a man's character for truthfulness and honesty that he has been 
 found engaged in this kind of service. Indeed the very nature 
 of the duties of this service call for a man of sterling integrity, in 
 order that the information obtained through him may have the 
 quality of reliability. 
 
 That Richard Montgomery succeeded fully in gaining the con- 
 fidence of these Canada rebels is shown by the fact that they made 
 him a medium of communication between themselves and the 
 Richmond government. His character is further shown by the 
 fact that when they paid him one hundred and fifty dollars
 
 THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AGAINST DAVIS, 165 
 
 for carrying despatches to Richmond he credited the government 
 with it on his expense account. And that he acted faithfully in 
 the discharge of his duties to his government is shown by the fact 
 that he always submitted the despatches sent by him to the author- 
 ities at Washington, where copies of them were kept when they 
 were allowed to pass. This is sufficient evidence that he was in a 
 position to learn the facts to which he testified, and also presump- 
 tive evidence of the credibility of his statements. The force of his 
 evidence could only have been broken by undoubted proof that 
 he was a man that could not be believed under oath. 
 
 Dr. James B. Merritt was a native of Canada by accident, having 
 been born there whilst his parents were there on a visit, but had been 
 
 11 his life a citizen of the State of New York. He went to Canada 
 in the spring of 1864, and practiced his profession at Windsor and 
 Dumfries. He passed amongst the rebels in Canada as a sym- 
 
 >athizer of the Southern cause, and was accepted by them as a 
 good rebel, and was fully taken into their confidences. They 
 
 ilked freely to him, and revealed their plans to him without hesi- 
 tation or reserve. His testimony, as we have seen, is very specific, 
 md relates to facts of the greatest importance. He testified that 
 
 lis sympathies had always been with his government, and that his 
 )bject in dissembling in his intercourse with the Canada rebels 
 
 /as to be able to impart information to the United States govern- 
 
 lent when he deemed it of sufficient importance to justify or 
 require its communication. 
 
 That he did thus voluntarily, and without compensation, furnish 
 valuable information to the government was shown. He had thus 
 communicated to the Provost Marshal at Detroit the plot to burn 
 New York City. It was also shown that he had made an effort to 
 communicate the knowledge he had obtained, after the meeting 
 of the 6th of April, at which John H. Surratt delivered to Thomp- 
 son the despatches he had brought from Richmond, as to the 
 parties starting from Canada to Washington to assist in the work 
 of assassination. There was sufficient evidence of his loyalty and 
 usefulness to the government, and his credibility was not assailed. 
 He was a self-constituted secret service man, working without 
 compensation, and so entitled to all the more honor.
 
 1 66 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Sanford Conover, known to the conspirators as James Watson 
 Wallace, was born and educated in New York City. He had been 
 living in the South for five or six years when the rebellion broke 
 out, and was conscripted into the rebel service from near Colum- 
 bia, S.C., early in 1863, but was detailed and served as a clerk in 
 the rebel war department at Richmond for six months. His sym- 
 pathies being on the side of the Union, he embraced the first good 
 opportunity he could find to desert, and ran the blockade from 
 Richmond, walking most of the way. He rode on the cars as far 
 as Hanover Junction, and then walked up through Snickersville 
 to Charlestown, and from there to Harper's Ferry, and so on to 
 Washington, reaching there in the latter part of December, 1863. 
 Whilst in Washington he became a correspondent of the New 
 York Tribune, and went to Canada in that capacity in October, 
 1864. He testified that he received compensation from the Trib- 
 une for his services as correspondent, but had never received 
 anything from either the United States or the Confederate govern- 
 ment, and that his sympathies had always been with the Union 
 cause. The fact that he was not willing to remain in the safe and 
 easy position of a clerk in the rebel war department, but chose 
 rather to take the hazard of deserting, fully confirms his sworn 
 statements as to his political sympathies. He also was a self-con- 
 stituted secret service agent of the United States, serving without 
 pay. He seems to have been peculiarly successful in working 
 himself into the confidence of Davis's agents in Canada, who 
 admitted him to their conferences and revealed fully and freely to 
 him all of their plans. His testimony is specific and conclusive 
 as to their guilt. After he had testified before the Commission 
 he was sent back to Canada by the Judge Advocate General to 
 get the official report of the St. Albans trial, to be used in evi- 
 dence. Arriving in Montreal, he was received in the most friendly 
 manner by the conspirators, who had not the least idea that he 
 had been a witness before the Commission, and so they went on 
 with their confidences as to what they would yet do, declaring 
 they were not done yet, etc. But after he had been there a day 
 or two, his testimony, which had hitherto been withheld, was 
 published in the New York papers, and this revealed to them the 
 fact that Sanford Conover was their James Watson Wallace.
 
 THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AGAINST DAVIS. 167 
 
 Of course they were like demons in their rage when they saw 
 that he had revealed all of their doings. He was at once virtually 
 made a prisoner by twelve or fifteen men armed to the teeth, who 
 confronted him with his testimony before the Commission. Con- 
 over found himself suddenly and unexpectedly placed in a situa- 
 tion of great difficulty and danger, escape being impossible, and 
 so he denied that he had been before the Commission as a witness. 
 
 They then required him to make a denial under oath, and set a 
 lawyer at work to put this disavowal in the most imposing shape, 
 
 whilst they sent for an officer to administer the oath, informing 
 Conover that he must appear to the officer not only to be willing, 
 but anxious to swear to this disclaimer, in which they make him 
 say he had been personated before the Commission by some infa- 
 mous scoundrel, who had sworn to a tissue of falsehoods, and telling 
 him that if he manifested the least hesitation or unwillingness his life 
 would pay the forfeit. He at first, in order to get away from them, 
 proposed that he would go to the hotel and prepare the paper that 
 they required. O'Donnell told him that would not do, and that he 
 would shoot him down like a dog if he did not do as they required. 
 Conover still declining, Sanders said to him, "Wallace, you see what 
 kind of hands you are in ; I hope you will not be so foolish as to 
 refuse." Seeing there was no other way of escape from them, Con- 
 over finally did what they required. They then had a lawyer, by 
 the name of Kerr, to write out and sign and be qualified to a very 
 formal affidavit covering the whole case, to the effect that he was 
 present and saw Conover swear to the disavowal referred to, and 
 that he did it willingly, and appeared anxious to do so, in justice 
 to his own character. These affidavits they at once published to 
 the world through the Canada papers, and with them also pub- 
 lished the following advertisement, as if from Conover : 
 
 Five hundred dollars reward will be given for the arrest, so that I can bring to 
 punishment, in Canada, of the infamous and perjured scoundrel who recently personated 
 me under the name of Sanford Conover, and deposed to a tissue of falsehoods before 
 the Military Commission at Washington. 
 
 JAMES W. WALLACE. 
 
 They also wrote and published over his name, as if from him, 
 the following letter :
 
 1 68 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 To the Editor of the Evening Telegraph : 
 
 Sir: Please publish my affidavit now handed you, and the subjoined advertisement. 
 I will obtain and furnish others for publication hereafter. I will add that if President 
 Johnson will send me a safe conduct to go to Washington and return here, I will pro- 
 ceed thither and go before the military court and make profert of myself, in order that 
 they may see whether or not I am the Sanford Conover who swore as stated. 
 
 MONTREAL, June 8th, 1865. JAMES W. WALLACE. 
 
 Conover not returning to Washington at the time he was ex- 
 pected, it was realized that he had been put in jeopardy by the 
 premature publication of his testimony, and so it became the duty 
 of the United States to follow him with its protecting arm, and he 
 was rescued through the intervention of General Dix. 
 
 Being thus rescued, he came again before the Commission and 
 testified circumstantially to all of the above facts, and thus exposed 
 the effort of the conspirators to break the force of his testimony by 
 an affidavit extorted by violence whilst he was virtually a prisoner, 
 and supported by that of Kerr, who may not have known that he 
 testified to a falsehood, as the coercion was used before he was 
 sent for, and still held over the head of Conover by the threat that 
 if he manifested the least hesitation or unwillingness before Kerr 
 his life would pay the forfeit. The testimony of Conover as to 
 the circumstances under which this affidavit was extorted from 
 him, was substantiated, as also his character, by Nathan Auser, 
 who testified as follows : 
 
 "I reside in New York, and am acquainted with Sanford Con- 
 over, who has just testified. I have known him eight or ten years ; 
 his character for integrity and usefulness is good as far as I know. 
 I recently accompanied him to Montreal, in Canada, and was 
 present at an interview which he had with Beverly Tucker, George 
 N. Sanders, and that clique of rebel conspirators. 
 
 " After we went into O'Donnell's room, at Montreal, Mr. 
 Cameron gave each of us a paper containing the evidence Mr. 
 Conover gave here in Washington before the Commission, when 
 he denied it. They told him he must sign a written paper to that 
 effect, and if he did not he would not leave the room alive. 
 O'Donnell said that he would shoot him like a dog if he did not. 
 Mr. Conover was first going to his hotel to write the paper; at
 
 THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AGAINST DAVIS. 169 
 
 first they agreeed to this, but when they got as far as St. Lawrence 
 Hall they made up their minds they would not let him do this 
 himself, and when they went upstairs at St. Lawrence Hall they 
 would not let me go up. There were, I think, twelve or fifteen of 
 the conspirators together ; among them Sanders, Tucker, O'Don- 
 nell, General Carroll, Fallen, and Cameron. They all accompanied 
 him for the purpose of preventing his escape and obliging him to 
 do what they required." 
 
 Thus was their attempt to break the force of Conover's testi- 
 mony by fraud and violence exposed, and they were left in a 
 more pitiable condition than if they had not made the effort. 
 Conover stands in a better light as a witness than he did before 
 it was made. 
 
 The question will naturally suggest itself to the intelligent reader, 
 why, if these men knew of the purpose and preparations referred 
 to as the result of the reception of the despatches from Richmond 
 at the hands of Surratt, did they not inform the authorities at 
 Washington? Accepting the fact that they had all the knowledge 
 on this subject which is implied in their testimony, and that they 
 were loyal to the government, as they declared themselves to be 
 under oath, this would seem plainly to have been their duty. 
 
 The counsel for the defense were not slow to perceive this fact, 
 and sought to weaken their standing before the Commission by ask- 
 ing them this very question. The answers elicited, however, only 
 served to strengthen their testimony. In answer, Dr. Merritt stated 
 as follows: "On Saturday the 8th of April I was at Gait, five 
 miles from which place Harper's mother lives, and I ascertained 
 there that Harper and Caldwell had stopped there and had started 
 for the States. When I found they had left for Washington, pro- 
 bably for the purpose of assassinating the President, I went to 
 Squire Davidson, a justice of the peace, to give information and 
 have them stopped. 
 
 " He said that the thing was too ridiculously or supremely 
 absurd to take any notice of ; it would only appear foolish to give 
 such information and cause arrests to be made on such grounds ; 
 it was so inconsistent that no person would believe it ; and he 
 declined to issue any process. I then called upon the judge of
 
 I JO ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 the court of assizes, made my statement to him, and he said I 
 should have to go to the grand jury." 
 
 In his answer it is made to appear that Dr. Merritt made an earn- 
 est effort to have this information imparted to the government, and 
 did all that we can reasonably think that he ought to have done. 
 
 His testimony is corroborated by that of Squire Davidson, who 
 made a statement to the government after the assassination, of this 
 interview that Merritt had sought with him and of the purpose of 
 it ; and it was upon this information that Dr. Merritt was brought 
 before the Commission as a witness. 
 
 In answer to this question, Conover testified as follows : " I 
 communicated to the New York Tribune the contemplated assas- 
 sination of the President, and the intended raid on Ogdensburg. 
 The assassination plot they declined to publish because they had 
 been accused of publishing sensational stories. The assassination 
 plot I communicated in March last, and also in February, I think, 
 certainly before the 4th of March. My reasons for communi- 
 cating the intended assassinations to the Tribune, and not directly 
 to the government, was that I supposed that the relations between 
 the editor and proprietor of the Tribune and the government were 
 such that they would lose no time in giving information on the 
 subject. In regard to the conspiracy, as well as to some other 
 secrets of the rebels in Canada, I requested Mr. Gay, of the Trib- 
 une, to give information to the government, and I believe he has 
 formerly done so." 
 
 Here again we find that the witness Conover fulfilled his duty, 
 which, under the circumstances in which his testimony places him 
 in regard to the matter, any reasonable man could have required 
 of him. And his position was also strengthened before the Com- 
 mission by the answer elicited. 
 
 Lewis F. Bates, who testified as to Jefferson Davis's remarks to 
 his auditors on reading to them the telegram from General Breckin- 
 ridge, informing him of the assassination of the President, etc., and 
 of his remarks to General Breckinridge on the following day at 
 the dinner table, was a resident of Charlotte, N.C., where he had 
 been for a little over four years. He was superintendent of the 
 Southern Express Company for the State of North Carolina. He
 
 THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AGAINST DAVIS. 171 
 
 was a native of Massachusetts. The responsible position in which 
 we find him vouches for his standing as a reliable man amongst 
 those who knew him. His character was further established 
 before the Commission by the 'testimony of a witness who was 
 acquainted with him, James E. Russell, as follows : " I reside 
 in Springfield, Mass. I have known Lewis F. Bates for about 
 twenty-five years. For the last five years I have not known any- 
 thing of his whereabouts, until I learned from him that he had 
 been living in Charlotte, N.C. He was in business as a baggage- 
 master on the Western Railroad, Massachusetts, while I was con- 
 ductor, and I never heard anything against his reputation for 
 truth." 
 
 Burton N. Harrison, private secretary to Jefferson Davis, in an 
 article entitled, " An Extract from a Narrative, written not for 
 publication, but for the entertainment of my children only," pub- 
 lished in the Century Magazine, New Series, Vol. V., pp. 136 and 
 137, says: " In pursuance of the scheme of Stanton and Holt to 
 fasten upon Mr. Davis charges of a guilty foreknowledge of, and 
 participation in, the murder of Mr. Lincoln, Bates was afterwards 
 carried to Washington and made to testify (before the military 
 tribunal, I believe, where the murderers were on trial) to some- 
 thing about that speech [referring to Davis's speech at Charlotte, 
 N.C.]. As I recollect the reports of the testimony published at 
 the time, they made the witness say that Mr. Davis had approved 
 of the assassination, either explicitly or by necessary implication ; 
 and that he added, ' If it was to be done it is well it was done 
 quickly,' or words to that effect. If any such testimony was 
 given it is false and without foundation ; no comment upon or 
 reference to the assassination was made in that speech. I have 
 been told the witness has always stoutly insisted he never testified 
 to anything of the kind, but that what he said was altogether 
 perverted in the publication made by the rascals in Washington. 
 Col. William Preston Johnston tells me he has seen another version 
 of the story, and thinks Bates is understood to have fathered it in a 
 publication made in some newspaper after his visit to Washington ; 
 it represents Bates as saying that the words above mentioned as 
 imputed to Mr. Davis were used by him, not, indeed, in the speech
 
 1/2 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 I have described, but in a conversation with Johnston at Bates's 
 house. Johnston assures me that, in that shape, too, the story is 
 false ; that Mr. Davis never used such words in his presence, or 
 any words at all like them. He adds that Mr. Davis remarked 
 to him at Bates's house, with reference to the assassination, that 
 Mr. Lincoln would have been much more useful to the Southern 
 States than Andrew Johnson, the successor, was likely to be ; and 
 I myself heard Mr. Davis express the same opinion at that period." 
 On p. 145, same article, he says: " It was at that cavalry camp we 
 first heard of the proclamation offering one hundred thousand 
 dollars for the capture of Mr. Davis upon the charge, invented 
 by Stanton and Holt, of participation in the plot to murder Mr. 
 Lincoln. Colonel Pritchard had himself just received it; and con- 
 siderately handed a printed copy of the proclamation to Mr. 
 Davis, who read it with a composure unruffled by any feeling 
 other than scorn. The money was several years afterwards paid 
 to the captors. Stanton and Holt, lawyers both, very well knew 
 that Mr. Davis could never be convicted upon an indictment for 
 treason, but were determined to hang him anyhow, and were in 
 search of a pretext for doing so." And again in conclusion he 
 says, " To have been a prisoner in the hands of the government of 
 the United States, and not to have been brought to trial upon any 
 of the charges against him, is sufficient refutation of them all. It 
 indicates that the people in Washington knew the accusations could 
 not be sustained." Had Mr. Harrison adhered to his original pur- 
 pose of simply entertaining his children with this article it would have 
 been much to his credit. It seems, however, that upon reading 
 and re-reading it he came to regard it as too clever a production, 
 and pf too much public importance, to be restricted to so narrow a 
 sphere, and so he publishes this lengthy extract from it in the 
 Century. The article, as it appears in the Century, is mostly 
 devoted to an account of the flight of Mr. Davis and his family 
 from Richmond, and their progress southward until captured. 
 
 We have simply extracted from this article that part which from 
 the nature of the subject claims our attention, as it relates to the 
 testimony of Lewis F. Bates before the Commission. Let us first 
 notice Mr. Harrison's assumption that Secretary Stanton and Gen-
 
 THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AGAINST DAVIS. 173 
 
 eral Holt had concocted a scheme to fasten on Jefferson Davis a 
 guilty complicity in the murder of Mr. Lincoln. This charge Mr. 
 Harrison makes with brazen effrontery, but does not bring a scin- 
 tilla of evidence to sustain it. Here are two high officers of the 
 government, the Secretary of War, and the head of the Depart- 
 ment of Military Justice, men of unsullied personal and official 
 reputation, charged with concocting a scheme to take the life of 
 Jefferson Davis on a trumped-up charge, and sustained by false 
 testimony. The Secretary of War, as was his duty, employed 
 every agency in his power to ferret out the conspirators, and in 
 the progress of his investigations turned over to the Judge Advo- 
 cate General all the facts that came to his knowledge, together 
 with the names of the persons by whom they could be proven. 
 These persons were brought before the Judge Advocate and care- 
 fully examined as to what they knew, and so became witnesses 
 before the Commission, when they were found to have knowledge 
 of facts bearing on the great crime that had been committed. 
 
 That any witness was in any manner coerced, or required to 
 render testimony that had been prepared for him by these officers 
 as charged, will only be believed by those who are ignorant of the 
 personal and official character of these noble, patriotic, men, or 
 those who, like Mr. Harrison, are willing to thus calumniate on 
 their own responsibility. That Mr. Bates was testifying under any 
 manner of duress will not be believed by any member of the Com- 
 mission who is yet living, and who can recall the appearance and 
 manner of the witness in giving his testimony. He was evidently 
 telling just what he had seen and heard, and did it willingly. The 
 charge of Mr. Harrison, that Bates was carried to Washington and 
 made to testify, rests simply on the authority of Mr. Burton N. 
 Harrison, whilom private secretary to Jefferson Davis, unsustained 
 by any evidence. 
 
 The evidence given by Bates was taken down, as delivered, by a 
 stenographer, and read to him before he was discharged, and its 
 correctness admitted by him, as witnessed by his signature. This 
 testimony was published in the newspapers, and also in the official 
 record of the trial. What excuse, then, can Mr. Harrison give for 
 quoting it as he recollected it, and so failing to give anything like 
 a correct version of his testimony?
 
 174 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 The testimony of Bates was that Mr. Davis, whilst addressing 
 the people from the steps of Bates's house, received a telegram 
 from General Breckinridge informing him of the assassination of 
 President Lincoln, and that an attempt had been made on the life 
 of William H. Seward, and that he was repeatedly stabbed and 
 probably mortally wounded, and that in concluding his speech he 
 read the telegram aloud, and made this remark, " If it were to be 
 done it were better it were well done." The witness added, " I am 
 quite sure that these are the words he used." And again, " A 
 day or two afterward Jefferson Davis and John C. Breckinridge 
 were present at my house, when the assassination of the President 
 was the subject of conversation. In speaking of it, John C. Breck- 
 inridge remarked to Davis that he regretted it very much, that it 
 was very unfortunate for the people of the South at that time. 
 Davis replied, ' Well, General, I don't know ; if it were to be done 
 at all, it were better that it were well done, and if the same had 
 been done to Andy Johnson, the beast, and to Secretary Stanton, 
 the job would then be complete.' No remark was made at all as 
 to the criminality of the act, and from the expression used by 
 John C. Breckinridge I drew the conclusion that he simply 
 regarded it as unfortunate for the people of the South at that 
 time." Here is Bates's testimony as it stands recorded, and was 
 also published at the time. 1 Why did not Mr. Harrison address 
 himself to this testimony instead of giving his version of it from 
 memory, and confounding it with newspaper reports as to what 
 Bates claimed to have been his testimony, and thus finding an 
 opportunity to substitute Col. William P. Johnston for General 
 Breckinridge, thus contradicting it through Johnston? General 
 Breckinridge was the only man who could have contradicted 
 Bates's testimony. If he ever did do this it has not come to 
 the knowledge of the writer. Bates's testimony cannot be set 
 aside in the manner attempted by Mr. Harrison. 
 
 The charge made by the government on that trial against Jeffer- 
 son Davis of inciting and encouraging the assassins, implicating 
 
 1 It is highly improbable that the witness would have given false testimony as to 
 this conversation between Davis and General Breckinridge because of the certainty of 
 its contradiction by the latter.
 
 THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AGAINST DAVIS. 175 
 
 him thus far in the murder of Mr. Lincoln, was only made upon 
 the evidence before it, and which we have already presented at 
 length. 
 
 It was not a trumped-up charge for the purpose of gratifying 
 malice, or with a view to the taking of the life of Mr. Davis un- 
 justly in revenge, but a charge made in good faith, and sustained 
 by evidence that has never been overthrown. 
 
 The conclusion of Mr. Harrison, that the government conceded 
 that its charge against Mr. Davis was unfounded in that it did not 
 prosecute it when i.t had him in custody as a prisoner, is a non 
 sequitor. 
 
 The rebellion was declared to be at an end shortly after the trial 
 of the assassins. The proclamation of martial law ceased with the 
 proclamation of peace. Civil law took the place of martial law with 
 the issuance of the proclamation that the rebellion was at an end. 
 The work of reconstruction belonged to the political department 
 of the government, and the benign policy of condoning the past, 
 and only securing guarantees for the future was wisely adopted ; 
 this security is found in the fourteenth amendment to the Consti- 
 tution, and illustrates the tempering of justice with rfiercy as had 
 never been before done in the history of the race. It can never 
 be claimed that the government abandoned its charge made 
 against any of these parties because it did not bring them to 
 
 
 
 trial when it had it in its power to do so. The charges as made 
 have never been withdrawn. They stand in the records of that 
 trial, and the evidence on which the charges were based has been 
 presented to the world and the question of the guilt or innocence 
 of the parties has been referred to the decision of an enlightened 
 and impartial public sentiment and to the judgment of the world. 
 
 But we will now consider the credibility of this testimony from 
 another standpoint. Here we have three witnesses, Conover, 
 Montgomery, and Merritt, strangers to each other, testifying as 
 to the facts known to each one separately, and they completely 
 corroborate each other. There could have been no possible col- 
 lusion, and yet their testimony is the same. It is, as it were, the 
 continued story of one man, who is consistent with himself at 
 every point. The purposes of the conspirators and their plans
 
 176 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 through a period of several months are the same, whether, they 
 come to us through Conover, Montgomery, or Merritt. " Out of 
 the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." The assassina- 
 tion plot was that which engrossed their thoughts. They were 
 continually scheming for its accomplishment ; it was the thing dear 
 to their hearts and was the constant theme of their tongues. 
 
 The witnesses corroborate each other in showing that this was 
 the case. In regard to the fact testified to by both Montgomery 
 and Merritt, that the conspirators stated they were destroying their 
 papers, we have the additional testimony of George B. Hutchinson, 
 who testified as follows: "On the 2d of June, and on the morn- 
 ing of the 3d, 1865, I saw Dr. Merritt in conversation with 
 Beverly Tucker, at St. Lawrence Hall, in Montreal. I heard 
 Beverly Tucker say in reply to a remark of Dr. Merritt, that he 
 had burned all the letters for fear that some ' Yankee son of a 
 b h ' might steal them out of his room and use them in testimony 
 against him. They were at the time speaking about this trial, and 
 the charges against them. They were talking to Dr. Merritt as to 
 one to whom they gave their confidence." 
 
 Who, in the light of all the facts given in this testimony, which 
 fulfills all the conditions, on down to the crucial test of credibility 
 that of the concurrence of three witnesses, who were entire 
 strangers to each other, in the statement of all the essential facts 
 can doubt that all these men implicated in the charge and specifi- 
 cations preferred by the government were equally guilty with John 
 H. Surratt and John Wilkes Booth of the assassination accomplished, 
 and that attempted ; as, also, of the others planned. It matters 
 not that for good and sufficient reasons they were never called to 
 account by the government, when it had it in its power to do so ; 
 they yet stand, and must forever stand, condemned by an intelli- 
 gent and candid world. If their guilt is not proven I do not see 
 how it would be possible to prove anything.
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 A CRITICISM OF NICOLAY AND HAY. 
 
 NlCOLAY and Hay in their " Life of Lincoln " (see Century 
 Magazine for January, 1890, p. 439), say: "The surviving con- 
 spirators, with the exception of John H. Surratt, were tried by a 
 military commission sitting in Washington in the months of May 
 and June. 
 
 "The charges against them specified that they were ' incited and 
 encouraged ' to treason and murder by Jefferson Davis and the 
 Confederate emissaries in Canada. This was not proven on the 
 trial ; the evidence bearing on the case showed frequent communi- 
 cation between Canada and Richmond and the Booth coterie in 
 Washington, and some transactions in drafts at the Montreal Bank 
 where Jacob Thompson and Booth kept their accounts. It was 
 shown by the sworn testimony of a reputable witness that Jefferson 
 Davis at Greensboro', on hearing of the assassination, expressed his 
 gratification at the news ; but this, so far from proving any direct 
 complicity in the crime, would rather prove the opposite, as a 
 conscious murderer usually conceals his malice. Against all the 
 rest, the facts we have briefly stated were abundantly proved," etc. 
 In a foot-note they add : " When captured by General Wilson he 
 (Jefferson Davis) affected to think he cleared himself of suspicion 
 in this regard by saying that Johnson was more objectionable to 
 him than Lincoln not noticing that the conspiracy contem- 
 plated the murder of both." From this there would seem to have 
 been some doubt in the mind of the writer on the question of 
 Davis's innocence. Again, they say: "Davis, in speaking to Gen- 
 eral Wilson about this charge, said that he regarded the charge of 
 treason as likely to give him more trouble than this." Of course 
 he relied on the sagacity of his co-conspirators in Canada for the 
 
 177
 
 i;8 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 destruction of all documentary evidence against him, and so he felt 
 that his guilt could not be proven. The writer has the highest 
 regard for these authors, and a very high appreciation of the man- 
 ner in which they have handled their great subject. The history 
 of several of the last years of the life of Abraham Lincoln is 
 inseparably linked with the history of his country, and that the 
 most momentous period of its history. To do justice to the sub- 
 ject of their memoir required a vast amount of the most painstak- 
 ing research, and a general overhauling of the political history of 
 the country over a period of a dozen or more years. 
 
 This was a work of great labor, involving a careful examination 
 of a multitude of documents and records. They had that familiar, 
 personal acquaintance with Mr. Lincoln, growing out of their offi- 
 cial relations to him, that enables them to form a correct estimate 
 of his intellectual and moral character, and of the innermost feel- 
 ings and governing motives of his life. They have done their 
 work faithfully and well, and have presented Mr. Lincoln in his 
 true character, and made manifest his wonderful astuteness, his 
 wisdom, forbearance, charity, gentleness, and toleration toward his 
 fellowmen, as well as his firmness and fidelity to the right, to the 
 gaze of an admiring world. It is with feelings of regret that faith- 
 fulness to my purpose of giving a true history of the great con- 
 spiracy which culminated in his death requires me to take issue 
 with them in their treatment of this case. It will be evident to all 
 my readers who have read and carefully considered the evidence 
 presented by the government to sustain its charge against Jeffer- 
 son Davis and his confederates in Canada, that authors who were 
 familiar with it could never have come to the conclusion so confi- 
 dently expressed by these authors when they say, " This was not 
 proved on the trial." The abstract of the evidence which they 
 then proceed to give, shows an equal degree of unfamiliarity with 
 it. It consists merely in a confused jumbling of a few compara- 
 tively unimportant facts, leaving unnoticed and untouched the 
 great mass of relevant and conclusive testimony that I have pre- 
 sented. The account which they give of the manner in which 
 Davis received the news of the assassination does not consist at all 
 with the testimony. They say: " It was shown by the sworn testi-
 
 A CRITICISM OF NICOLA Y AND HAY. 179 
 
 mony of a reputable witness that Jefferson Davis at Greensboro', 
 on hearing of the assassination, expressed his gratification at the 
 news ; but this, so far from proving any direct complicity in the 
 crime, would rather prove the opposite, as a conscious murderer 
 usually conceals his malice." 
 
 Jefferson Davis received the news of the assassination at Char- 
 lotte, not at Greensboro'. Breckinridge telegraphed the news to 
 him from Greensboro'. It is the testimony of Lewis F. Bates to 
 which they refer. But my readers, who have so lately read Mr. 
 Bates' testimony, I am sure will not recognize it in the account 
 which these authors give of it ; and as they have failed in giving 
 us a true account of the testimony, we cannot wonder if they draw 
 an erroneous conclusion from it inferentially. It will be remem- 
 bered that all the expressions that escaped from the rebel chief on 
 that occasion were those of deep-felt dissatisfaction and bitter 
 disappointment. A free rendering of his language on that occa- 
 sion would amount to just this : " It might just as well not have 
 been done at all, since the job was not thoroughly done. If Andy 
 Johnson, the beast, and Stanton had only been included, the job 
 would then have been complete. It would have been of some 
 account to us." His whole speech and demeanor on that occasion 
 show him to have been a co-conspirator, fully aware of the scope 
 of their plot, and displeased at the incompleteness of the " job." 
 
 Again, on page 432 of the Century for January, 1890, we find 
 the following: "He (Booth) was a fanatical secessionist; had 
 assisted at the capture of John Brown, and had imbibed, at Rich- 
 mond and other Southern cities where he had played, a furious 
 spirit of partisanship against Mr. Lincoln and the Union party. 
 
 "After the re-election of Mr. Lincoln, which rung the knell of 
 the insurrection, Booth, like many of the secessionists North and 
 South, was stung to the quick by disappointment. He visited 
 Canada, consorted with the rebel emissaries there, and at last 
 whether or not at their instigation cannot certainly be said con- 
 ceived a scheme to capture the President and take him to Rich- 
 mond. He spent a great part of the autumn and winter inducing 
 a small number of loose fish of secession sympathies to join him 
 in this fantastic enterprise. He seemed always well supplied with
 
 180 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 money, and talked largely of his speculations in oil as a source of 
 income ; but his agent afterwards testified that he never realized a 
 dollar from that source that his investments, which were incon- 
 siderable, were a total loss. The winter passed away, and nothing 
 was accomplished. On the 4th of March, Booth was at the 
 capitol, and created a disturbance by trying to force his way 
 through the line of policemen who guarded the passage through 
 which the President passed to the east front of the building. His 
 intentions at this time are not known. He afterwards said he lost 
 an excellent chance of killing the President that day. There are 
 indications in the evidence given on the trial of the conspirators 
 that they suffered some great disappointment in their schemes in 
 the latter part of March ; and a letter from Arnold to Booth, dated 
 2 /th March, showed that some of them had grown timid of the 
 consequences of their contemplated enterprise, and were ready to 
 give it up. He advised Booth, before going farther, to go and see 
 
 how it would be taken at R d. But timid as they might be 
 
 by nature, the whole group was so completely under the ascen- 
 dency of Booth that they did not dare disobey him when in his 
 presence ; and after the surrender of Lee, in an excess of malice 
 and rage which was akin to madness, he called them together and 
 assigned each his part in the new crimes [the italics are ours], 
 the purpose of which had arisen suddenly in his mind out of the 
 ruins of the abandoned abduction scheme. This plan was as 
 brief and simple as it was horrible. Powell, alias Payne, the stal- 
 wart, brutal, simple-minded boy from Florida, was to murder 
 Seward ; Atzerodt, the comic villain of the drama, was assigned 
 to remove Andrew Johnson ; Booth reserved for himself the most 
 difficult and most conspicuous role of the tragedy ; it was Herold's 
 duty to attend him as a page, and aid in his escape." 
 
 In this rather long extract, in which the situation is pictured 
 with a facile pen, there are are two assumptions that are wholly 
 irreconcilable with the evidence. 
 
 The first is, that the plot was at first to capture the President and 
 carry him to Richmond, whether with or without the approbation 
 of the Canada conspirators, our author's assume cannot be known. 
 
 The evidence does not show that such a plot was really enter-
 
 A CRITICISM OF NICOLA Y AND HAY. i 8 I 
 
 tained either by Booth or his co-conspirators in Canada. Con- 
 over testified that he heard this scheme discussed at a meeting of 
 the latter in February ; but it does not appear that it was ever 
 considered practicable, or was really entertained by them. The 
 proposition was too quixotic to receive the serious consideration 
 of rational, intelligent men. All the testimony in regard to the 
 Canada conspirators shows that they were all the time from Octo- 
 ber, 1864, devoting all their thoughts to securing the assassination, 
 not only of the President, but also of the others named in the 
 charge and specifications, and that by nothing but the assassina- 
 tion of all of these men could the political end which they sought 
 be secured. This assumption of our authors is shown by the 
 testimony to be wholly untenable. The next assumption to 
 which I take exceptions is equally untenable in the light which 
 the testimony throws on the subject. It is, that the assassination 
 was the result of a hasty impulse of rage and disappointment, 
 akin to madness ; that a new crime was thus conceived, which 
 grew out of the ruins of the abduction plot, which I have already 
 sufficiently shown was never entertained by any of the parties. So 
 far from being the result of a hasty impulse, the testimony clearly 
 proves that it had been long entertained, and that they had all been 
 planning, preparing, and arranging for its execution for months. 
 
 It is greatly to be regretted that such popular, and usually 
 reliable, authors, should have allowed themselves on this occasion 
 to write thus loosely, and express opinions and conclusions so 
 much at variance with the testimony. It tends to obscure the truth 
 of history, and to the formation of an erroneous public opinion. 
 
 The conclusion at which I have arrived, and expressed without 
 hesitation, as to the guilt of Davis and his Canada Cabinet in this 
 matter, stands untouched by that expressed by these authors, 
 because it is manifest that they not only had never studied, but 
 were quite unfamiliar with, the evidence on which alone a right 
 judgment can be based. 
 
 All I ask of my readers is, that they will scan carefully what I 
 have given as having been fairly deduced from the testimony 
 before the Commission, or to study the testimony itself as given in 
 Pittman's official report of the trial, and then judge between us.
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 JACOB THOMPSON'S BANK ACCOUNT. WHAT BECAME OF THE 
 
 MONEY? 
 
 THE testimony before the Commission developed the fact that 
 the Canada Cabinet was kept well supplied with money, and that 
 Jacob Thompson was the Judas that carried the bag. 
 
 His treasury was kept replenished by Southern bills of exchange 
 on Liverpool. Robert Anson Campbell, first teller of the Ontario 
 Bank of Montreal, Canada, appeared before the Commission and 
 gave testimony as to Thompson's transactions with his bank as 
 follows: "I know Mr. Jacob Thompson very well. His account 
 with the Ontario Bank I hold in my hand. It commenced May 
 3Oth, 1864, and closed April nth, 1865. Prior to May 3Oth, 
 he left with us sterling exchange, drawn on the rebel agents at 
 Liverpool, for collection. The first advice we had was May 3Oth, 
 when there was placed to his credit 2,061 ijs. and i^d., and 
 .20,618 us. 4^., amounting to $109,965.63. The aggregate 
 amount of the credits is $649,873.28, and there is a balance still 
 left to his credit of $1,766.23; all the rest has been drawn out. 
 Since about the ist of March he has drawn out $300,000, in sterl- 
 ing exchange and deposit receipts. On the 6th of April last there 
 is a deposit receipt for $180,000. The banks in Canada give de- 
 posit receipts, which are paid when presented, upon fifteen days 
 notice. On the 8th of April he drew a bill of 446 12s. id., and 
 on the same day 4,000, sterling. On the 24th of March he drew 
 $100,000 in exchange; at another time, $19,000. This sterling 
 exchange was drawn to his credit, and also the deposit receipts. 
 
 " Mr. Jacob Thompson has left Montreal since the I4th of April 
 last. I heard him say he was going away. He used to come to 
 the bank two or three times a week, and the last time he was in 
 182
 
 JACOB THOMPSON'S BANK ACCOUNT. 183 
 
 he gave a check to the hotel keeper, which I cashed, and he 
 then left the hotel. His friends stated to me that he was going to 
 Halifax, overland. Navigation was not open then, and I was told 
 he was going overland to Halifax, and thence to Europe. I 
 thought it strange at the time that he was going overland, when 
 by waiting two weeks longer he could have taken a steamer ; and 
 it was talked of in the bank among the clerks. The account was 
 opened with Jacob Thompson individually. The newspaper report 
 was that he was financial agent of the Confederate States. We 
 only knew that he brought Southern sterling exchange bills, drawn 
 on Southern agents in the old country, and brought them to our 
 bank for collection. How they came to him we did not know. 
 He was not, as far as I know, engaged in any business in Canada 
 requiring these large sums of money. 
 
 " He had other large money transactions in Canada. I knew of 
 one transaction of $50,000, that came through the Niagara District 
 Bank, at St. Catherines, a check drawn to the order of Mr. Clement 
 C. Clay, and deposited by him in that bank ; they sent it to us, 
 August 1 6th, 1864, to put to their credit. 
 
 " Thompson has several times bought from us United States 
 notes or greenbacks. On August 25th he bought $15,000 in 
 greenbacks, and on July I4th, $19,125. This was the amount 
 he paid in gold, and at that time the exchange was about 55. 
 I could not say what the amount of greenbacks was, but that is 
 what he paid for it in gold. On March I4th last he bought $1,000 
 worth of greenbacks at 44f , for which he paid $552.20 in gold. 
 On the 2Oth of March he bought 6,500 sterling at 9^. He also 
 bought drafts on New York in several instances. J. Wilkes Booth, 
 the actor, had a small account at our bank. I had one or two 
 transactions with him, but do not remember more at present. 
 He may have been in the bank a dozen times ; and I distinctly 
 remember seeing him once. He has still left to his credit $455, 
 arising from a deposit made by him, consisting of $2OO, in $20 
 Montreal bills, and Davis's check on Merchant's Bank of $255. 
 Davis is a broker, who kept his office opposite the St. Lawrence 
 Hall, and is, I think, either from Richmond or Baltimore. 
 
 " When Booth came into the bank for this exchange he bought
 
 1 84 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 a bill of exchange for 61 and some odd shillings, remarking, ' I 
 am going to run the blockade, and in case I should be captured 
 can my capturers make use of the exchange ? ' I told him they 
 could not unless he endorsed the bill, which was made payable to 
 his order. He then said he would take $300, and pulled out that 
 amount, I think, in American gold. I figured up what $300 
 would come to at the rate of exchange. I think it was 9^, and 
 gave him a bill of exchange for 61 and some odd shillings." 
 
 The bills of exchange found on Booth's body at the time of his 
 capture were here exhibited to the witness, who said, " These are 
 the Ontario Bank bills of exchange that were sold to Booth, bear- 
 ing date October 2/th, 1864. 
 
 Testimony of Daniel S. Eastwood. 
 THE BEN WOOD DRAFT. 
 
 The following is the testimony of Daniel S. Eastwood, in 
 regard to Jacob Thompson's bank account, and serves to account 
 for $25,000 of his expenditures: " I am assistant manager of the 
 Montreal branch of the Ontario Bank, Canada. I was officially 
 acquainted with Jacob Thompson, formerly of Mississippi, who has 
 for some time been sojourning in Canada, and have knowledge of 
 his account with our bank, a copy of which was presented to this 
 Commission by Mr. Campbell, our assistant teller. 
 
 "The moneys to Mr. Thompson's credit accrued from the 
 negotiation of bills of exchange, drawn by the secretary of the 
 treasury of the so-called Confederate States on Frazier Trenholm 
 & Company, of Liverpool. They were understood to be the finan- 
 cial agents of the Confederate States at Liverpool, and the face 
 of the bills, I believe, bore that inscription. Among the disposi- 
 tions made from that fund, by Jacob Thompson, was $25,000 
 paid in accordance with the following requisition : 
 
 4329. MONTREAL, Aug. loth, 1864. 
 
 Wanted from the Ontario Bank, 3 days' sight, 
 On New York, 
 
 Favor of BENJAMIN WOOD, Esq. 
 $25,000 
 
 For current funds. 
 
 $10,000 
 Deliv. 60 p. c. 
 Ex. $15.00 A. M.
 
 JACOB THOMPSON'S BANK ACCOUNT. 185 
 
 " The ' $10,000 ' underneath the $25,000 is the purchase money 
 in gold of $25,000 worth of United States funds. 
 
 " At Mr. Thompson's request the name of Benjamin Wood was 
 erased (the pen being just struck through it), and my name as 
 an officer of the bank written immediately beneath it, that the 
 draft might be negotiable without putting any other name to it. 
 
 " I have in my hand, it having been obtained from the cashier 
 of the City Bank in New York, the original draft for the $25,000 
 on which that requisition was made by Mr. Thompson, in the 
 name of Benjamin Wood. It reads : 
 
 $25,000. THE ONTARIO BANK. No. 4329. 
 
 MONTREAL, loth of August, 1864. 
 
 At three day's sight please pay to the order of D. S. EASTWOOD, in current funds, 
 twenty-five thousand dollars value received, and charge the sume to account of this 
 branch. 
 
 To Cashier City Bank, H. Y. STANUS, 
 
 New York. Manager. 
 
 INDORSED. 
 
 Pay to Hon. BENJAMIN WOOD, Esq., or order. 
 D. S. EASTWOOD. 
 B. WOOD. 
 
 " I have found this draft in the hands of the payee of the City 
 Bank in New York, and I understand from the cashier it has been 
 paid. Mr. Thompson was frequently in the habit of drawing 
 moneys in the name of an officer of the bank, so as to conceal the 
 person for whom it was really intended. 
 
 " A good deal of Thompson's exchange was drawn in that way, 
 so that there is no indication, except from the bank or the locality 
 on which the bill was drawn, to show where use was made of the 
 funds. Large amounts were drawn for, at his instance, on the 
 banks of New York, but we were not acquainted with the use they 
 were put to. 
 
 " The Ben. Wood, to whom the draft was made payable, is, I 
 believe, the member of Congress, and the owner of the New York 
 News." Jacob Thompson's bank account, already in evidence, was 
 handed to the witness, who said : " This is a copy of Jacob Thomp- 
 son's banking account with us, as testified to by Robert Anson
 
 1 86 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Campbell. I see in the account entries of funds that were used 
 for purpose of exchange on New York, and also on London. The 
 item $189,999, on the 6th of April, 1865, was issued in deposit 
 receipts, which may be paid anywhere." 
 
 In answer to a question by Mr. Aiken, counsel for defense, the 
 witness said : " I do not remember any drafts cashed at our bank 
 in favor of James Watson Wallace, Richard Montgomery, or James 
 B. Merritt. I have no recollection of the names." 
 
 Evidence of George Wilkes : "I am acquainted with Benjamin 
 Wood, of New York, and am familiar with his handwriting. The 
 signature at the back of that bill of exchange I should take to be 
 his. At the date of this bill Benjamin Wood was a member of 
 Congress of the United States. He was editor and proprietor of 
 the New York News, so he told me himself. The paper, I have 
 heard, has been recently managed by John Mitchell, late editor or 
 assistant editor of the Richmond Examiner and the Richmond En- 
 quirer" The endorsement was further proven to be in the hand- 
 writing of Ben. Wood by the testimony of Abram D. Burrell. 
 This testimony not only accounts for $25,000 paid to Ben. 
 Wood, then a member of Congress from New York City, for 
 services rendered to the rebel cause in the halls of legislation, 
 or attempted to be there rendered, but more particularly in 
 the management of the New York News. In his capacity as 
 a legislator as well as that of editor, Ben. Wood made himself 
 conspicuous as a traitor to his country, and thus he was re- 
 warded by Jacob Thompson for his services to the rebel cause. 
 The testimony also throws light on Jacob's method of doing busi- 
 ness in a secret, underhanded manner, in order that the object and 
 purport of his transactions being thus concealed from public knowl- 
 edge he could engage in any wicked scheme without detection. 
 Witness has drafts for $180,000 on the 6th of April, all being put 
 in such form that they could not well be traced, and so that it 
 could not well be ascertained who were the payees, or where paid, 
 or whether they were ever paid at all. They were probably held 
 by this skilfull secret financier in such shape that, upon the failure 
 to fulfill the contract and then come forward and claim the reward, 
 they reverted to the Hon. Jacob Thompson.
 
 JACOB THOMPSONS BANK ACCOUNT. 1 87 
 
 The testimony of these witnesses reveals several very important 
 facts bearing on the subject of our investigations. First, it is 
 shown that the rebel agents in Canada were kept well supplied 
 with money by the Richmond government, their credits in the 
 Canada banks arising from Southern bills of exchange on the 
 rebel agents at Liverpool. Now the question arises, for what 
 purpose was this money placed at their disposal? They were 
 sent by the rebel government to Canada to work for the success of 
 the rebellion in ways and by means which have been disclosed 
 by the testimony. Of course, then, they were supported whilst in 
 Canada by the Richmond government, and it is reasonable to 
 suppose at a fixed salary that had been agreed upon in advance. 
 Then, of course, their personal expenses had to be met, and as 
 icy were by no means parsimonious in their habits, this item 
 done would make a considerable draft on their treasury. Then 
 they employed a good many men, escaped rebel soldiers and 
 >ther rebel refugees at various times to execute various schemes 
 concocted by them to aid the rebellion. 
 
 One witness stated that they said they had eight hundred men 
 secreted in Chicago, in the summer of 1864, to aid in a plan to 
 liberate the rebel prisoners at Camp Douglass, which plan was 
 frustrated by the government being informed of it in advance by 
 friends in Canada who were cognizant of the plot. Of course the 
 expenses of all of these men had to be met, and no doubt liberal 
 compensation made to those who were entrusted with the execu- 
 tion of the plot. So, also, the plot to burn the city of New York, 
 the St. Albans raid, and various other schemes of like character 
 cost a good deal of money. Of course they defrayed all of the 
 expenses of the trial of the St. Albans raiders for extradition. 
 The scheme of spreading disease and death through infected 
 clothing, in which Dr. Blackburn was employed as their agent, no 
 doubt cost them a good round sum. It will be remembered that 
 Blackburn employed Godfrey Joseph Hyams as his agent to get 
 the infected clothing sold at such places in the United States as 
 he indicated, under the promise of one hundred thousand dollars ; 
 and although he and Thompson chiselled Hyams out of nine 
 hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred dollars of this, it
 
 1 88 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 is quite reasonable to suppose that Blackburn received large pay 
 for his risk and trouble in going to Bermuda and carefully infect- 
 ing this clothing. 
 
 The witness, Montgomery, testified that he heard Clay say, in 
 speaking of these enterprises, that " they always had plenty of 
 money to pay for anything that was worth paying for." We 
 have seen from the testimony that Booth, and we have good 
 reason to infer that Surratt also, were kept plentifully supplied 
 with money from the time that a definate arrangement was made 
 with them to take charge of the assassination job in the latter part 
 of October, 1 864, until the final accomplishment, so far as it was 
 accomplished, of their plot. We have seen that they were both 
 without occupation, or legitimate source of income, during all that 
 time, and that they were actively engaged in preparation for their 
 work, and were going in a style of prodigality in their expendi- 
 tures, travelling a great deal, boarding not only themselves, but 
 also several of the hired assistants, at hotels in Washington, 
 without regard to cost, even stipulating in the case of Payne 
 that his meals should be served to him in his room. Then they 
 were every way profligate in their habits, especially in drinking 
 and smoking both costly vices and also in purchasing horses 
 and hiring them kept at livery stables ; and still further in hiring 
 horses of livery men for their excursions about the suburbs of the 
 city in perfecting their plans for escape. Again, Booth always 
 had money to use in drawing into the plot, and in holding assist- 
 ants. No doubt the fifty dollars sent to Arnold in a letter came 
 from Booth ; and we know he sent in a letter fifty dollars to 
 Chester to induce him to join him, and although he allowed 
 Chester to return this money it was not until he had fully satisfied 
 himself that it was useless to press Chester any further on the 
 subject. They were evidently as profuse in their promises of 
 reward to their co-conspirators whom they hired as Blackburn 
 was to Hyams. Booth offered to deposit three thousand dollars 
 for a retainer's fee to Chester ; and, in addition to this, assured him 
 that if he would go into the conspiracy he would never want for 
 money as long as he lived. Even so worthless a fellow as 
 Atzerodt had been fed with the idea that he would soon have as
 
 JACOB THOMPSON'S BANK ACCOUNT. 189 
 
 much gold as would keep him a gentleman the balance of his 
 life. 
 
 Now, where was all this money to come from ? Evidently from 
 Jacob Thompson's bank account. The evidence of the bank 
 teller shows that the bill of exchange which was found on Booth's 
 body after his death was the same bought of him by Booth. 
 This bill of exchange was dated Oct. 27, 1864. 
 
 It will be remembered that the Selby letter (the Selby being, 
 no doubt, an alias, as they were all sailing under aliases} reveals 
 the fact that it was at that meeting of the conspirators in Mont- 
 real, about the last of October, 1 864, that the plot was matured, 
 and arrangements made for carrying it into effect. No doubt this 
 arrangement made between the Canada Cabinet and Booth and 
 his fellow assassins involved a large expenditure of money such 
 an amount, that when the " Cabinet " came to consider the matter 
 over they shrunk from the responsibility and called a halt until 
 they could get the sanction of the Richmond government in such 
 a form that they could have a voucher to show for this expendi- 
 ture. Hence, their after regret that " the boys had not been 
 allowed to act when they wanted to." This sanction was delivered 
 to them by Surratt on the 6th of April, when Thompson, placing 
 his hand on the despatches, exclaimed, " This makes the thing all 
 right ! " It would be a very singular coincidence, indeed, on the 
 theory that Davis, Thompson, and the others in Canada were not 
 in the conspiracy, that on this very day Thompson drew on his 
 bank account for $180,000 by a deposit receipt; and that on the 
 8th, two days later, he drew for ^446 12s., id., and then again on 
 the same day for .4,000 sterling, amounting in the aggregate to 
 over two hundred thousand dollars. Assuming this to have been 
 the cost of the assassinations for which Booth and Surratt had 
 made themselves responsible, and that on which they were count- 
 ing to keep them well supplied with money all the balance of their 
 lives, the question arises what became of this money? Of course 
 their hired assassins were only to be paid when they had fulfilled 
 their contract. The money was subject to this contingency; 
 hence there was, no doubt, a provisional arrangement by which 
 Thompson held control over the reward promised them, and, when
 
 190 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 we look at the final result of the thing, we can readily see that the 
 money, in the end, reverted to Thompson. 
 
 There is another very remarkable coincidence revealed in this 
 testimony ; that is, the fact of Thompson's leaving Canada on the 
 1 4th of April, 1865, for Europe, travelling overland to Halifax, 
 when by waiting two weeks longer he could have gone by 
 steamer. This was such an unusual circumstance as to require 
 explanation, and excited remarks amongst the clerks in the bank 
 at the time. If we have been led by the evidence to the conclu- 
 sion that the government fully sustained its charge and specifica- 
 tion against Jacob Thompson, we can at once explain this coinci- 
 dence of his leaving Montreal for Europe by the overland route to 
 Halifax on the very day on which he expected the plot to be 
 consummated. He could not afford to wait for the opening of 
 navigation, lest his flight might be impeded by arrest, and a 
 warrant or demand for his extradition on the charge that he was 
 a member of the conspiracy. " The wicked flee where no man 
 pursueth." A guilty conscience is its own accuser. This remark- 
 able coincidence, equally with the other, is presumptive evidence 
 of his guilt. 
 
 Booth kept his bank account in the same bank with Thompson, 
 and there is every reason to believe that his credits were from 
 money supplied to him by Thompson. When he drew the bill of 
 October 27th, which was found on his person after his death, he 
 explained that he was going to run the blockade. We have 
 seen what he meant by that; and this gives additional evidence 
 that the assassination plot was fully matured, as shown by the 
 Selby letter, at that time, and that on the part of Booth, acting 
 under the latitude of discretion contained in that letter, he was 
 only biding his time, waiting and watching for, and seeking to 
 make, an opportunity; and that had he not been restrained by 
 Thompson until he could get authority from Richmond that would 
 serve him as a voucher for the large outlay of money involved, 
 he would have acted long before he finally did. 
 
 Now the question comes up, what became of the money de- 
 posited to Thompson's credit by the Confederate government in 
 the banks of Canada? We have seen that he had deposited
 
 JACOB THOMPSONS BANK ACCOUNT. 191 
 
 to his credit in the Ontario Bank of Montreal $649,873.28, and 
 have learned that he had, in addition to this, large transactions in 
 other Canada banks. The reduction of his account in the Mont- 
 real bank of over $200,000 by the drafts of the 6th and 8th of 
 April, we have every reason to believe was dependent upon con- 
 tingencies for their payment which were never fulfilled, and so 
 this large amount reverted to Thompson. The Confederate 
 government died suddenly and unexpectedly about this time, 
 leaving no executor with will annexed, and no one to look after 
 its assets, or court authorized to appoint an administrator ; and so 
 it would seem that in this case Jacob Thompson was not only a 
 man that had achieved notoriety, but that he also had riches thrust 
 upon him. Perhaps he and Clay, Tucker, Sanders, Cleary, and 
 Holcombe held a court in equity, and distributed amongst them 
 the assets thus accidentally left in their hands.
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE CASE OF MRS. SURRATT. 
 
 So earnest and persistent have been the efforts of rebel priests, 
 politicians and editors to pervert public opinion in regard to the 
 case of Mrs. Surratt that it becomes necessary to devote some 
 special consideration to it even at the expense of some repetition. 
 Immediately after her execution a wild howl was set up by these 
 people for the purpose of making political capital out of the 
 sympathy and tender feeling which we all have for her sex. Her 
 innocence was boldly asserted, and the government was denounced 
 for her execution. They suppressed or set at naught all the evi- 
 dence against her, and made many false statements to subserve 
 the purpose they had in view. These efforts were only made by 
 those who had been the enemies of the government during the 
 war who had either asserted the right of secession, or denied 
 the right of the government to coerce (to use their own expression) 
 a State into submission to its authority. 
 
 Because President Lincoln felt that the 'obligations of his official 
 oath required him to maintain the authority of the government 
 and to preserve the Union they had all through the terrible 
 struggle in which he was engaged been his bitter enemies. They 
 were actuated by a spirit of malignant hatred of the Union cause, 
 and stood ready to oppose and denounce every measure that the 
 President had found necessary to the success of his purpose and 
 work. Their hostility to the government was only rendered more 
 intense by its success in putting down the rebellion, and so they 
 were ready to seize on this occasion, that they might, out of it, 
 make political capital. This effort has never been abandoned, and 
 the case of Mrs. Surratt continues to be worked for all that it is 
 
 192
 
 MRS. MARY E SURRATT.
 
 THE CASE OF MRS. SURRATT. 193 
 
 worth by that portion of the Northern press that inherits the old 
 copperhead animus. 
 
 To fully understand the case of Mrs. Surratt we must make her 
 acquaintance as early as 1863. We find her at that time living 
 at Surrattsville, in Prince George County, Md., ten miles below 
 Washington City. The villa called Surrattsville consisted simply 
 of a country tavern owned and occupied by Mrs. Surratt. She 
 was a widow with three children, two sons and a daughter. The 
 elder son had gone to Texas and had volunteered in the rebel 
 service. The younger son, John H. Surratt, a young man of nine- 
 teen, had left St. Charles College in the summer of 1861, not to 
 volunteer as a soldier, but to engage in the secret service of the 
 Confederacy. There was a United States post-office at Surratts- 
 ville ; and this young man, in addition to his duties as a Confederate 
 spy and carrier of despatches for the rebel government, handled 
 Uncle Sam's mail and delivered it to his neighbors. From all this 
 we can readily gather the attitude of Mrs. Surratt toward the 
 government. On the trial of John H. Surratt, John F. Tibbetts 
 testified that in 1863 he was carrying the mail from Washington 
 to Charlotte Hall, and that he stopped at Surrattsville to deliver 
 the mail at that office. On one occasion, whilst waiting for the 
 mail there, he heard Mrs. Surratt say that she would give one 
 thousand dollars to any one that would kill Lincoln. He also 
 testified that when there was a Union victory he heard her son 
 say in her presence that, " The d d Northern army and the 
 leader thereof ought to be sent to hell." 
 
 Here we see the deep and traitorous hostility to the govern- 
 ment of these people who were in its service under the obligations 
 of an official oath. In the fall of 1864 Mrs. Surratt removed to 
 Washington, taking the house 541 on H Street. She rented her 
 Surrattsville property to a man by the name of Lloyd. What 
 prompted this change is not known to the writer. Her son had 
 so won the confidence of Jefferson Davis and Judah P. Benjamin 
 that he had for a considerable time been entrusted by them, not 
 only with important despatches, but also with large sums of money 
 sent to their agents in Canada. 1 Indeed, this seems to have been 
 
 1 Trial John H. Surratt, p. 468, testimony of Dr. McMillen.
 
 194 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 the only employment in which he was then engaged ; and at this 
 time the assassination plot, as we have seen, was engaging the 
 serious attention both of Davis and his agents in Canada, and 
 that both Surratt and Booth were in the confidence of these men, 
 though they were as yet not personally acquainted with each other. 
 
 Booth arranged with Dr. S. A. Mudd to come to Washington 
 to introduce him to Surratt, which he did on the 23d day of 
 December, 1864. Their acquaintanceship ripened into the closest 
 intimacy with a rapidity that was due to a common sympathy and 
 a common purpose. They were from that time much together, 
 and Booth at once became a frequent and constant visitor at the 
 house of Mrs. Surratt. 1 From this time on the evidence begins 
 to accumulate, showing her to be informed of the work in which 
 they were engaged, and to have fully entered into their scheme 
 as a helper. 2 There were a number of boarders in her house. 
 These merely received the ordinary civilities of personal inter- 
 course from Booth ; but with John and his mother his intercourse 
 was always of a private and confidential character. 
 
 Booth's habit was to come into that house, and after the com- 
 mon-place civilities to tap John on the shoulder and ask him to 
 spare him a moment of his time, when they they would retire to an 
 upstairs room and remain in conference sometimes for two or three 
 hours. In John's absence (and he was frequently away) Booth would 
 ask Mrs. Surratt to grant him a private interview, which she always 
 did. What business could this man, who had been so recently 
 introduced to the family, have had that required so much and 
 such strict privacy? Whatever it was, Mrs. Surratt was trusted by 
 him equally with her son. We have now presented the state of 
 things in that house between these parties as shown by undisputed 
 testimony, and will proceed to show from the further evidence in 
 the case what the business was that they had on hand. 
 
 Shortly after John H. Surratt made the acquaintance of Booth, 
 Atzerodt became a frequent visitor at Mrs. Surratt's. 3 The first 
 
 1 Official Report of the Conspiracy Trial, p. 114, testimony of L. J. Wiechmann. 
 
 2 See Report Conspiracy Trial, pp. 114, 115 and pp. 85-87. Testimony of L. J. 
 Wiechmann and John M. Lloyd. 
 
 3 Official Report Conspiracy Trial, p. 115.
 
 THE CASE OF MRS. SURRATT. 195 
 
 time he came he inquired for " John H. Surratt or Mrs. Surratt." 
 How did he know of Mrs. Surratt in such a way that he could 
 make her the alternative of John? In the early part of March 
 Payne called at the Surratt house, and inquired for John H. Sur- 
 ratt, but when told that he was not at home he asked to see Mrs. 
 Surratt. 1 He was an entire stranger, but knew enough, not only 
 about John but also about his mother, to make her the alternative 
 in the absence of her son. He passed under the alias of Wood on 
 this visit. Mrs. Surratt took him in for the night, and got her 
 boarder, Wiechmann, to take him to his room, where she had his 
 supper served to him. Would she thus have acted toward a 
 stranger of whom she knew nothing? It is not to be believed. 
 Payne carried the key to her hospitality in some secret sign that 
 had been adopted by these conspirators. Toward the last of 
 March Payne called again, giving the name of Payne and claim- 
 ing to be a Baptist preacher. He remained in the house this time 
 for three days, and on one of these days was surprised by Wiech- 
 mann coming into his room, where he found John H. Surratt and 
 Payne fencing with bowie-knives, and with revolvers lying on the 
 bed ; there were also four sets of new spurs. Wiechmann spoke 
 about what he had seen to Mrs. Surratt, saying " that he did not 
 like the look of things," when she said, " Oh, you need not be 
 disturbed about it; John rides a good deal in the country, and 
 has to carry these things to protect himself." ! 
 
 It was during this visit that Booth, Surratt, Payne, Atzerodt, 
 Herold, and one or two others, started out on an expedition from 
 which they returned under circumstances of disappointment and 
 rage, as heretofore recounted, and of the import of which Mrs. 
 Surratt was seen to have been fully informed, as she was weeping, 
 and declined going to her dinner. Upon the failure of this expedi- 
 tion Booth went to New York and Payne to Baltimore. The plot, 
 however, was not abandoned ; and for its future prosecution it seemed 
 desirable to Booth and Surratt to transfer Payne to Washington, 
 and that in the most secret manner, and there to keep him hidden 
 away until he was wanted. They procured a room for him at the 
 
 1 Official Report Conspiracy Trial, p. 114. 
 
 2 Official Report Conspiracy Trial, p. 115, and Trial of John H. Surratt, pp. 377, 378.
 
 196 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Herndon House, representing him to be a delicate gentleman, 
 and stipulating that his meals should be served to him in his 
 room. 1 It came to the knowledge of Wiechmann that Booth and 
 Surratt had placed some one in that house, and he was naturally 
 curious to know whom it was. Atzerodt let the secret out, and 
 when Wiechmann spoke of its being Payne who was quartered in 
 the Herndon House, Mrs. Surratt asked him how he knew. When 
 he gave Atzerodt as the source of his information she manifested 
 some displeasure. But we are not left to infer from this that she 
 had been informed of the disposition that had been made of Payne, 
 for a night or two after that, when returning from an evening ser- 
 vice at St. Patrick's Church, in company with Wiechmann and 
 three or four young ladies, she stopped when they came to the 
 Herndon House, and asked the party to wait on her a few minutes 
 whilst she should go in and see Payne. 2 They waited on this 
 interview for about twenty minutes. Thus we see that she was 
 notified of every move that was made in preparation for the 
 assassination. 
 
 Not only were Booth, Atzerodt, and Payne visitors at Mrs. Sur- 
 ratt's, but also the notorious rebel spy and blockade runner, Mrs. 
 Slater, alias Brown, was one of her visitors. This woman stayed 
 all night with her toward the latter part of March, 1865, and was 
 accompanied by Mrs. Surratt and her son John when she left on 
 the next morning, Mrs. Surratt going as far as Surrattsville, whilst 
 her son accompanied her to Richmond in place of a Mr. Howell 
 whom she had expected to have for her escort, but who had been 
 arrested, and so Surratt took his place. 3 
 
 On one occasion Mrs. Surratt sent Mr. Wiechmann to Booth 
 with a message that she wanted to see him on private business, to 
 which Booth responded. 
 
 On the Tuesday before the assassination Mrs. Surratt asked 
 Wiechmann to drive her down to Surrattsville, and upon his con- 
 senting to do so she sent him to Booth to request the use of his 
 horse and buggy for the trip. Booth told Wiechmann that he 
 
 1 Conspiracy Trial, p. 113. Trial of Surratt, pp. 377, 378. 
 
 * Trial of Surratt, pp. 385, 386. 
 
 3 Trial Conspirators, pp. 113, 114, and Trial Surratt, 383, 384.
 
 THE CASE OF MRS. SURRATT. 
 
 197 
 
 had sold his horse and buggy, but he gave him ten dollars with 
 which to procure one. 1 As they were on their way down they 
 met Mrs. Surratt's tenant, Lloyd, on the road, when Mrs. Surratt 
 requested Wiechmann to stop. Lloyd, recognizing her, got out of 
 his buggy and came to the side of Mrs. Surratt's buggy, on which 
 she was sitting, when she leaned her head out toward him and 
 conversed with him in so low a tone that Wiechmann did not hear 
 what was said; 2 but Lloyd testified that she told him to "have 
 those shooting-irons handy, as they would be called for before 
 long." The shooting-irons to which she referred were the two 
 Spencer carbines that had been carried to Surrattsville some time 
 previous by J. H. Surratt, Atzerodt, and Herold, and which John 
 H. Surratt and Lloyd had hidden away, as related heretofore. 
 Thus we see that Mrs. Surratt was kept posted in regard to every 
 move that was made ; that she knew that these arms had been 
 deposited there, the purpose for which they had been left there, 
 and that they would be called for soon. We can now understand 
 Booth's generosity in furnishing her ten dollars to pay for a 
 conveyance she carried his message to Lloyd. On the day of 
 the assassination she again got Wiechmann to drive her down 
 to Surrattsville, no doubt at Booth's request, and perhaps at 
 his expense. She gave to Wiechmann ten dollars with which 
 to procure a conveyance, and as he passed out of her house on 
 this errand he met Booth at the front door, in the act, as it were, of 
 ringing the door bell. 3 When Wiechmann returned, in passing to 
 his room, he saw Booth in the parlor conversing with Mrs. Surratt. 
 Booth sent by her to Lloyd, on this occasion, a field-glass and 
 a message to have the two carbines ready, together with this glass 
 and two bottles of whiskey, as they would be called for that night. 
 Lloyd was absent from home when they arrived at Surrattsville, 
 and did not return until late in the evening. Mrs. Surratt dilly- 
 dallied until he returned, and then snatched an opportunity for a 
 private interview with Lloyd in his back yard, where he had 
 
 1 Trial Conspirators, p. 113. 
 
 2 Trial Conspirators, pp. 118-119. Trial Conspirators, p. 85. Testimony of John 
 M. Lloyd. 
 
 :) Trial Conspirators, p. 113, and Trial Surratt, pp. 391, 392.
 
 198 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 driven. She then delivered to him the field-glass and Booth's 
 message to have the shooting-irons, etc., ready as they would be 
 called for that night, as they were, by Booth and Herold, about 
 midnight. Lloyd swore that this was the message which she 
 delivered to him during that interview in the back yard. 1 
 
 Can any one doubt now that Mrs. Surratt was fully posted in 
 every particular of the assassination plot, that she was fully trusted 
 by Booth and her son, and was in sympathy with their purpose 
 and willing to do all she could in aiding its accomplishment, 
 that she was, in fact, a co-conspirator? 
 
 On the night of the assassination, about three o'clock in the 
 morning, a party of detectives called at Mrs. Surratt's house for 
 the purpose of searching it to see whom they could find there, 
 and demanded admittance. When informed of their visit and the 
 purpose of it by Wiechmann, she said, " For God's sake let them 
 in. I have been expecting the house to be searched." : How 
 many people in Washington were expecting detectives to come 
 that night to search their houses? Not one who was innocent of 
 crime. Two nights later the inmates of this house Mrs. Surratt, 
 her daughter, and Miss Fitzpatrick were put under arrest by the 
 military police ; and whilst they were waiting for a conveyance at 
 near the hour of midnight the assassin Payne rang the door bell, 
 and was taken in and placed under arrest by the officer in charge. 
 When Mrs. Surratt was confronted by Payne she held up her hand 
 and solemnly said, " Before God I do not know him, and never 
 saw him." ! It will be remembered that he had within the last 
 three weeks to that time stayed in her house for three days and 
 nights, and he was a man of such marked personality that he could 
 not have been so easily forgotten. The defense, in her case, 
 attempted to account for this by an alleged infirmity of sight, but 
 they were unable to establish by testimony any infirmity of sight 
 beyond what is common to her age of about forty-five. 4 It will 
 be remembered that Payne had been hiding and skulking for three 
 
 1 Conspiracy Trial, pp. 85, etc. 
 
 2 See supplemental affadavit of L. J. Wiechmann, and Trial of Surratt, p. 394. 
 
 3 Trial Conspirators, pp. 121, 122. 
 
 4 Conspiracy Trial. Testimony for the defense and testimony in rebuttal, pp. 132, 
 139 inclusive.
 
 THE CASE OF MRS. SURRATT. 199 
 
 days and nights, and of all the houses in Washington her's was the 
 only one to which he felt that he could go and entrust the secret 
 of his presence. 
 
 He could, under the circumstances in which he was placed, 
 only have given this confidence to a co-conspirator. Having now 
 given a brief synopsis of the testimony on which Mrs. Surratt 
 was found guilty by the Commission, it will be in order for my 
 readers to form their own conclusions as to her guilt or innocence. 
 The writer only desires to say that additional testimony going to 
 show the justice of the finding of the Commission in her case 
 came out incidentally on the trial of John H. Surratt, and will 
 also be found in the affidavit of L. J. Wiechmann, made after the 
 military trial, in which he recounts a number of circumstances that 
 had escaped his memory when on the witness stand, and which 
 recurred to him in his subsequent reflections on the case. The 
 testimony of Sergeants Dye and Cooper, given on the trial of Sur- 
 ratt, was that in passing Mrs. Surratt's house about ten minutes 
 after the murder, a lady which Dye (having seen Mrs. Surratt at 
 the military trial) believed to have been her, raised a window, and 
 thrusting her head out, asked them what was wrong down town. 1 
 
 Here we have her sitting in her parlor at about twenty-five min- 
 utes after ten o'clock waiting anxiously to hear some news. There 
 was as yet no excitement on the street to awaken curiosity. These 
 two soldiers believed they were the first persons to pass that house 
 after the assassination ; the street was entirely quiet ; as they passed 
 along they met two policemen shortly after passing the house 541, 
 where Mrs. Surratt lived, who had not yet heard the news ; yet 
 here was a woman expecting to hear some news ; who hailed the 
 first passers-by after the fatal, and evidently appointed, hour to 
 inquire what was wrong down town. It was also proven by a 
 servant of good character, Susan Ann Jackson, that she had on 
 that night served supper in the dining-room, after the family and 
 boarders had left, to a man whom Mrs. Surratt called her son, and 
 whom this witness identified as the prisoner at the bar. 2 We can 
 now see why she was anxiously awaiting the news. 
 
 1 Trial of Surratt, pp. 136, 137, and pp. 186, 187, 188. 
 
 2 Trial of Surratt, pp. 163, 164, 165.
 
 2OO ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 On the trial of Surratt a good deal of the testimony introduced 
 to show the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate the President, 
 and that the prisoner was a member of this conspiracy, implicated 
 his mother in it equally with himself. Most of the witnesses that 
 had been brought before the Commission to prove the existence 
 of such a conspiracy, and that Mary E. Surratt was an active 
 member of it, were again produced on this trial. As the witnesses 
 Lloyd and Wiechmann were the most important of these, their 
 testimony being completely conclusive of the guilt both of the 
 the prisoner and his mother, great efforts were made to discredit, 
 especially, the testimony of Wiechmann ; but this could not be 
 done by any of the methods known to the law. He stood the test 
 of every effort and came out unscathed from a bitter and most 
 hostile cross-examination that occupied a day and a half. Every 
 effort was made to make him contradict himself as to his present 
 testimony in chief, as also to his testimony given two years before 
 at the military trial, but without avail. No false witness could 
 possibly have come out of such a fiery ordeal unscathed. Truth 
 is always consistent with itself, and one truth is always consistent 
 with every other correlated truth, and for this reason a witness 
 that keeps the truth can never be entrapped. 
 
 He was contradicted, it is true, by negative testimony as to 
 some points in his evidence. Persons who were in the same room 
 with him at the time that certain declarations were made to which 
 he testified swore that they did not hear them. But such testi- 
 mony is of no value. If one person in company with many others 
 in a room were to swear that he heard the clock strike, his testi- 
 mony as to that fact could not be discredited by that of all the 
 others swearing that they did not hear it strike. Positive testi- 
 mony cannot be overthrown, or even shaken, by negative. Wit- 
 nesses were also brought to prove that he had made different 
 statements, and some to prove that he had virtually admitted that 
 he had testified falsely as to Mrs. Surratt, and that he had been 
 held under duress by certain officers of the government and 
 required to state in his testimony what they dictated to him. 
 These efforts also proved failures, as a close, scrutinizing cross- 
 examination made it apparent that these witnessess had been sub-
 
 THE CASE OF MRS. SURRATT. 2OI 
 
 orned, and were delivering a cooked-up testimony. After every 
 effort had been made that could be devised by the ingenuity of 
 counsels, Wiechmann stood before the court, the jury, and the 
 country, as an honest, conscientious, truthful man. He was also 
 a man of superior talent, education, and intelligence. In short, he 
 established a character that must challenge the admiration of every 
 candid mind. 
 
 The attempt was also made to overthrow Lloyd's testimony, 
 but without success. His testimony was assailed principally on 
 the ground that he was drunk when he returned to his home on 
 that evening, the I4th of April, when Mrs. Surratt snatched an 
 opportunity to get a private interview with him, by going out to 
 him in his back yard, as soon as he drove up, and there delivering 
 to him the message to which he testified, and also gave him Booth's 
 field-glass. Lloyd himself admitted that he was pretty drunk on 
 that occasion, but he was not so drunk but that he could carry 
 out Mrs. Surratt's instructions to the very letter. He got the car- 
 bines and all the other things and placed them where they would 
 be handy when called for, so that they could be delivered without 
 detaining the parties long when they should be called for. 1 He 
 was also on hand at the time they called, and ready to get these 
 things for them. It is evident Lloyd knew the purpose of all this. 
 When called on by the soldiers and detectives who were in pursuit 
 of Booth and Herold the next morning, he denied that there had 
 been anybody there during that night. He knew nothing. But 
 when he found a chain of ascertained facts about to fasten upon 
 him, in great fear and trepidation he made a clean breast of it, and 
 told all. He then gave as a reason for his course in denying all 
 knowledge of the matter, that he knew he could not tell all that 
 he knew without implicating Mrs. Surratt, and that he did not 
 want to do that. 
 
 1 Trial of Conspirators, p. 86. Trial of Surratt, pp. 282, 283.
 
 202 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Note and Affidavit of L. J. Wiechmann. 
 
 Col. H. L. BURNETT, Judge Advocate, Cincinnati, Ohio: 
 
 COLONEL : I stated before the Commission at Washington that I commenced to 
 board with Mrs. Surratt in November, 1864. As a general thing I remained at home 
 during the evenings, and consequently I heard many things which were then intended 
 to blind me, but which now are as clear as daylight. The following facts, which have 
 come to my recollection since the renditon of my testimony, may be of interest : 
 
 AFFIDAVIT OF Louis J. WIECHMANN. 
 
 I once asked Mrs. Surratt what her son John had to do with Dr. Mudd's farm; 
 why he made himself an agent for Booth? (She herself had told me that Booth desired 
 to purchase Mudd's farm.) Her reply was, that Dr. Mudd and the people of Charles 
 County had got tired of Booth, and that they had pushed him on John. Before the 4th 
 of March she was in the habit of remarking that something was going to happen to 
 ' ' Old Abe ' ' which would prevent him from taking his seat ; that General Lee 
 was going to execute a movement which would startle the whole world. What that 
 movement was she never said. A few days after I asked her why John brought such 
 men as Herold and Atzerodt to the house, and why he associated with them? " Oh, 
 John wishes to make use of them for his dirty work," was her reply. On my desiring 
 to know what the dirty work was, she answered that " John wanted them to clean his 
 horses." He had two at that time. And once, when she sent me to Brooks, the 
 stable keeper, to inquire about her son, she laughed, and remarked that " Brooks con- 
 sidered John H. Surratt and Booth and Herold and Atzerodt a party of young 
 gamblers and sports, and that she wanted him to think so." Brooks has told me since 
 the trial that such was actually the case, and that at one time he saw John H. Surratt 
 with three one-hundred-dollar notes in his possession. 
 
 When Richmond fell and Lee's army surrendered, when Washington was illumi- 
 nated, Mrs. Surratt closed her house and wept. Her house was gloomy and cheerless. 
 To use her own expression, it was "indicative of her feelings." On Good Friday I 
 drove her into the country, ignorant of her purpose and intentions. We started at 
 about half-past two o'clock in the afternoon. Before leaving, she had an interview 
 with John Wilkes Booth in the parlor. On the way down she was very lively and 
 cheerful, taking the reins into her own hands several times and urging on the steed. 
 We halted once, and that was about three miles from Washington, when, observing that 
 there were pickets along the road, she hailed an old farmer and wanted to know if 
 they would remain there all the night. On being told that they were withdrawn about 
 eight o'clock in the evening, she said "she was glad to know it." On the return I 
 chanced to make some remark about Booth, stating that he appeared to be without 
 employment, and asking her when he was going to act again. "Booth is done 
 acting," she said, "and is going to New York very soon, never to return." Then 
 turning round, she remarked: "Yes, and Booth is crazy on one subject, and I am 
 going to give him a good scolding the next time I see him." What that "one sub- 
 ject " was Mrs. Surratt never mentioned to me. She was very anxious to be at home at 
 nine o'clock, saying that she had made an appointment with some gentleman who was 
 to meet her at that hour. I asked her if it was Booth. She answered neither yes nor
 
 THE CASE OF MRS. SURRATT. 2O3 
 
 no. When about a mile from the city, and having from the top of a hill caught a view 
 of Washington swimming in a flood of light, raising her hands, she said: " I am afraid 
 all this rejoicing will be turned into mourning, and all this glory into sadness." I 
 asked her what she meant. She replied that after sunshine there was always a storm, 
 and that the people were too proud and licentious, and that God would punish them. 
 The gentleman whom she expected at nine o'clock, on her return, called. It was, as I 
 afterwards ascertained, Booth's last visit to Mrs. Surratt, and the third one that day. 
 She was alone with him for a few minutes in the parlor. I was in the dining-room at 
 the time, and as soon as I had taken tea I repaired thither. Mrs. Surratt's former 
 cheerfulness had left her. She was now very nervous, agitated, and restless. On my 
 asking her what was the matter, she replied that she was very nervous and did not feel 
 well. Then looking at me, she wanted to know which way the torch-light procession 
 was going that we had seen on the avenue. I remarked that it was a procession of the 
 arsenal employees, who were going to serenade the President. She said that she 
 would like to know, as she was very much interested in it. Her nervousness finally 
 increased so much that she chased myself and the young ladies, who were making a great 
 deal of noise and laughter, to our respective rooms. When the detectives came, at three 
 o'clock the next morning, I rapped at her door for permission to let them in. " For 
 God's sake, let them come in ! I expected the house to be searched," she said. 
 
 When the detectives had gone, and her daughter, almost frantic, cried out: "Oh, 
 ma! Just think of that man (John Wilkes Booth) having been here an hour before 
 the assassination ! I am afraid it will bring suspicion on us." 
 
 " Anna, come what will," she replied, " I am resigned. I think that John Wilkes 
 Booth was only an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this proud and 
 licentious people." 
 
 (Signed) Louis J. WIECHMANN. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed before me this nth day of August, 1865. 
 
 (Signed) CHAS. E. PANCOAST, 
 
 Alderman.
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 FATHER WALTER. 
 
 FROM the time of the trial of the conspirators by a military 
 commission, and of the execution of Mrs. Surratt by the order of 
 President Johnson, Father Walter, a secular priest of Washington 
 City, has made himself conspicious by his efforts to pervert public 
 opinion on the result of the trial of the conspirators by the Com- 
 mission. Whilst rebel lawyers, editors, and politicians have boldly 
 assailed the lawfulness of the Commission, and have denounced it 
 as an unconstitutional tribunal, and have characterized the trial as 
 a " Star Chamber " trial, as a contrivance for taking human life 
 under a mockery of a judicial procedure, but with no purpose of 
 securing the ends of justice, Father Walter and other priests whose 
 sympathies were with the Southern Confederacy have earnestly 
 seconded their efforts by the invention and circulation of cunningly 
 devised falsehoods. Father Walter has every now and then bobbed 
 up with the assertion of Mrs. Surratt's entire innocence. Knowing 
 that not one in a thousand of our people has ever read the testi- 
 mony on which she was convicted, he feels that he can boldly 
 assert that " there was not evidence enough against her to hang a 
 cat." He has also become bold enough to state as facts what the 
 evidence shows to be falsehoods. As an example of this : in an 
 article in the "Catholic Review" he asserts in regard to Mrs. 
 Surratt's trip to Surrattsville on the afternoon of the day of the 
 assassination that she had ordered her carriage for the trip, which 
 was purely on private business, on the forenoon of that day, and 
 before it was known that the President would go to the theatre. 
 Why, if this was true, was it not proven in her defense? There 
 was no such testimony produced. The testimony on this point 
 against her was that shortly after two o'clock on that afternoon 
 204
 
 FATHER WALTER. 205 
 
 she went up stairs to Wiechmann's room, tapped at the door, and 
 when it was opened she said to Mr. Wiechmann, " I have just 
 received a letter from Mr. Calvert that makes it necessary for me 
 to go to Surrattsville to-day and see Mr. Nothey. Would you be 
 so good as to get a conveyance and drive me down ? " Upon 
 Wiechmann's consenting to do so, she handed him a ten dollar 
 bill with which to procure a conveyance. Surely there is no evi- 
 dence here that a carriage had been ordered already, as Wiech- 
 mann was left free to procure a conveyance where he might see fit. 
 
 Wiechmann went down stairs, and as he opened the front door 
 he saw John Wilkes Booth, who was in the act, as it were, of pull- 
 ing the front door bell. Booth entered the house. 
 
 When young Wiechmann returned, after having procured the 
 buggy, he went up to his own room after some necessary articles 
 of clothing, and as he again descended the stairs and passed by 
 the parlor door he observed that Booth was in the parlor convers- 
 ing with Mrs. Surratt. In a little while Booth came down to the 
 front door steps, and waved his hand in token of adieu to Wiech- 
 mann, who was standing at the curb. 
 
 When Mrs. Surratt came and was in the act of getting into the 
 buggy, she remembered that she had forgotten something, and 
 said, " Wait a moment, until I go and get those things of Mr. 
 Booth's." She returned from the parlor with a package which 
 was done up in brown paper, the contents of which the witness 
 did not see, but which was afterwards shown to have been the 
 field-glass which Booth carried with him in his flight. This glass 
 Booth sent to Lloyd by Mrs. Surratt, with a message to have it, 
 with the two carbines and two bottles of whiskey, where they 
 would be handy, as they would be called for that night. Lloyd 
 swore that this was the message delivered to him by Mrs. Surratt 
 in the private interview she sought with him in his back yard on 
 his return home that evening, and that in accordance with these 
 instructions he delivered them to Booth and Herold about mid- 
 night that night. 1 Now let us see about the private business on 
 which she professed to be going, and on which she claimed on her 
 
 1 See testimony of L. J. Wiechmann and John M. Lloyd on the trial of the conspir- 
 .ators and on the trial of J. H. Surratt. Also testimony of Trial Conspirators, p. 126.
 
 2O6 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 trial that she went. The letter from Mr. Calvert was a demand 
 for money that she owed him, and was written at Bladensburg on 
 the 1 2th of April. On the afternoon of the I4th she presented 
 herself to Wiechmann and claimed that she had just received it. 
 It would seem very strange that it took this letter two days to 
 reach her at a distance of only six miles. She claimed that she 
 must go and see Mr. Nothey, who owed her, and get money 
 from him to pay her debt to Mr. Calvert. Mr. Nothey lived five 
 miles below Surrattsville, and as she claimed that she had just 
 received Mr. Calvert's letter it was impossible that she could have 
 made any arrangement with Nothey to meet her at Surrattsville 
 that day. She did not meet him there, neither did she go to his 
 house to see him. When she arrived at Surrattsville she took 
 Wiechmann into the parlor at the hotel and asked him to write 
 a letter for her to Mr. Nothey, which he did at her dictation ; and 
 this she sent to Mr. Nothey by a Mr. Bennett Gwinn, a neigh- 
 bor of his, who happened to be passing down. 
 
 Now, in view of all these facts, can any one see how her private 
 business was in any way subserved by her trip to Surrattsville on 
 that afternoon? She could as easily have written to Mr. Nothey 
 from Washington as from Surrattsville. A postage stamp, a sheet 
 of paper and an envelope would have saved her six dollars, the cost 
 of her trip, and would have served her business just as well. The 
 truth is that this talk of going on private business of her own was 
 all a fabrication, first to deceive Mr. Wiechmann as to the object 
 of her trip, and then to be used, should it become necessary, in 
 her defense. We have already seen what her real business was. 
 
 Father Walter falsifies again in the article referred to in say- 
 ing that she did not see Lloyd on that afternoon, but delivered the 
 things to his sister-in-law, Mrs. Offutt. 1 Both Lloyd and his 
 sister-in-law testified to her interview with him in his back yard, 
 and Lloyd testified as to what passed between them on that 
 occassion. 
 
 It would seem that Father Walter is going on the theory that 
 we have gotten so far past the time, and that the testimony has 
 
 1 See testimony of John M. Lloyd, Trial Conspirators, pp. 85, 86, and testimony 
 of Mrs. Emma Offutt, pp. 121-125, and Trial of Surratt, p. 281.
 
 FATHER WALTER. 2O/ 
 
 been so far forgotten that he can foist upon the public any state- 
 ment that he may please to fabricate. We would kindly remind 
 the reverend Father that no ultimate gain can be derived from an 
 effort to suppress the truth. Neither can it be obliterated by our 
 prejudices. We may misconstrue facts, but we cannot wipe them 
 out by a mere stroke of the pen ; and a fact once made can never 
 be recalled. But I am not yet done with this Father. He pre- 
 faces his article in the " Review " with the statement that he 
 heard Mrs. Surratt's last confession, and that whilst his priestly 
 vows do not permit him to reveal the secrets of the confessional, 
 yet from knowledge in his possession he is prepared to assert her 
 entire innocence of this most atrocious crime. He means that we 
 shall understand that were he at liberty to give her last confession 
 to the world he could say that she then and there asserted her 
 entire innocence. 
 
 Will Father Walter deny that under the teachings of the Roman 
 Catholic Church he had an absolute right, with her consent, to 
 make her confession public on this point? Nay more, could not 
 Mrs. Surratt have compelled him to do so in vindication of her 
 own good name, and of the honor of the church of which she was 
 a member? And having this consent, was it not his most solemn 
 duty to proclaim her confessed innocence in every public way, 
 through the press, and even from the very steps of the gallows ? 
 
 Why was not that confession made public? Why was it not 
 reduced to writing and signed with her own hand ? Why has it 
 not in its entirety been given to the world? Why must the public 
 wait twenty-seven years, and instead of having the full confession be 
 required to content itself, in so great a case, with a mere assertion 
 from the reverend Father, based on his alleged knowledge? Aye, 
 just there's the rub ! \ 
 
 That confession of Mrs. Surratt's would have proved very inter- 
 esting reading, and might have let in a flood of light on some 
 places that are now very dark ; it would, indeed, have shown how 
 far Mrs. Surratt was involved in the abduction and assassination 
 plots, and to what degree she was the willing or unwilling tool of 
 her son, and of John Wilkes Booth. That confession would have 
 shown the object of Booth's visit to her on the very day and eve of
 
 208 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 the murder. It would have explained what she had in her mind 
 when she carried Booth's field-glass into the country, and told 
 Lloyd to have the "shooting-irons" and two bottles of whiskey 
 ready on that fateful night of the I4th of April. And if she did 
 not explain satisfactorily every item of testimony which bore so 
 heavily against her, then her last confession was worth nothing. 
 
 Father Walter never had at any time Mrs. Surratt's consent to 
 make her confession public, and he dare not do so now after 
 twenty-seven years have elapsed since he shrove his unfortunate 
 penitent. 
 
 Why, we repeat, did not Father Walter do this? He was 
 interesting himself very much in her behalf in trying to get her 
 a reprieve ; why did he not use this as an argument with the 
 President in her behalf that in her final confession she asserted 
 her innocence? Why did he wait until the sentence had been 
 confirmed by the President and a full cabinet without a dissenting 
 voice, and then had been carried into execution, before he put 
 into circulation the story of her confessed innocence? And why 
 does he refer to his priestly vows as his excuse for this conduct, 
 when he knows full well that having gained Mrs. Surratt's consent 
 to make her confession public as an entirety, these vows imposed 
 upon him no such restrictions? In vindication of the Commission, 
 and also of the court of review, the President and his cabinet, 
 we submit that the evidence shows her to have been guilty, no 
 matter what she might have said in her final confession. 
 
 Perhaps she had been led to believe that President Lincoln was 
 an execrable tyrant, and that his death was no more than that of 
 the " meanest nigger in the army." Her remarks to her daughter 
 the night her house was searched indicate the views she took of 
 the subject. " Anna, come what will, I am resigned. I think 
 that Booth was only an instrument in the hands of the Almighty 
 to punish this wicked and licentious people." ' To one who could 
 have taken this view of the case, Booth's act could not have been 
 regarded as a crime ; and she who rendered him all the aid she 
 could would feel no guilt. They were only co-operating with the 
 Almighty in the execution of his vengeance. On the trial of John 
 
 1 See supplemental affidavit of L. Wiechmann and Trial of J. H. Surratt, p. 295.
 
 FATHER WALTER. 
 
 209 
 
 H. Surratt, Mr. Merrick brought Father Walter on to the stand and 
 asked him if he had heard the last confession of Mrs. Surratt, to 
 which the Father answered, " I did. I gave her communion on 
 Friday and prepared her for death." 
 
 Mr. Merrick in his argument before the jury said: "I asked 
 him ' Did she tell you as she was marching to the scaffold that 
 she was an innocent woman ? ' I told him not to answer that 
 question before I desired him to. He nodded his head, but. did 
 not answer that question, because he had no right, as the other 
 side objected." Now what was the object of all this? Mr. Mer- 
 rick brought the Father on to the stand and asked him a question 
 that had not the slightest relevancy to any issue before that jury. 
 He knew, of course, that the prosecution would object, and that 
 the question could not be answered. It was a direct question, and 
 could have been answered by, "She did" or "She did not." Why 
 does not the Father answer at once ? He had been cautioned not 
 to do so until desired, and so he waits for the prosecution to 
 object and estop him from answering the question. Mr. Merrick, 
 however, in his argument assumes that the Father stood ready to 
 say that, " She solemnly declared her entire innocence to me in 
 her last confession," and throws the responsibility on the other 
 side for not getting this answer. The argument was this: "You 
 see that Father Walter stood ready to testify to this fact, but the 
 prosecution objected, and so he could not do it." 
 
 Now, what has become of the Father's priestly vows behind 
 which he has always been hiding? Or was all this a mere piece 
 of acting, to give the counsel a point from which to denounce the 
 government, the Commission, and all who were concerned in visit- 
 ing justice upon the assassins? 
 
 We believe it to be true that the laws of his church did not for- 
 bid him to make public, with her consent or command, her last 
 confession on this point, and that the Father in making the state- 
 ments he does at this late day is simply practicing sleight-of- 
 hand upon the public. It is a very strange circumstance, too, that 
 whilst Payne, Arnold, O'Laughlin, Atzerodt, and even John H. 
 Surratt admitted their connection with cne or the other of the con- 
 spiracy plots, Mrs. Surratt has not left one word or line after her
 
 2IO ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 to explain away the incriminating evidence brought against her. 
 The reason is plain ; she could not have explained anything with- 
 out involving herself and her son, and giving away the whole 
 case. 
 
 For twenty-six years Father Walter and his rebel co-adjutors 
 have kept a paragraph going the rounds of the papers, stating as 
 a fact that all the members of the Commission but one are dead, 
 and that they died miserable deaths, which marked them as the 
 subjects of heaven's vengeance, and that some of them perished 
 from the violence of their own hands, being crazed with remorse. 
 
 The truth" is that at this writing, April, 1892, all of the members 
 of the Commission are alive except General Hunter and General 
 Ekin. General Hunter lived to over four score years, and General 
 Ekin to seventy-three. The present writer is nearly seventy-nine 
 and is still able to vindicate the truth in the interest of a true history 
 of his period. Is it not high time that the American people should 
 be fully informed as to this most important episode in their his- 
 tory, in order that they may not be misled by men who were not 
 the friends, but the enemies, of our government in its struggle for 
 its preservation and perpetuation?
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 - 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Now come the United States and challenge an intelligent and 
 candid world to say whether or not, in the light of all this evi- 
 dence, they have vindicated their dignity and honor by showing 
 that they had just grounds for charging Jefferson Davis, George 
 N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, 
 Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and others un- 
 known, with combining, confederating and conspiring together with 
 one John Wilkes Booth and John Harrison Surratt to kill and 
 murder Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, William H. Seward, 
 and Ulysses S. Grant, with the intent to subvert the Constitution 
 and overthrow the government of the United States in aid of the 
 then existing rebellion and as a means of giving it success ; and 
 that further, as specified, they, together with John H. Surratt, 
 John Wilkes Booth, David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis 
 Payne, Mary E. Surratt, Edward Spangler, Samuel Arnold, 
 Michael O'Laughlin, and Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, did, on the night 
 of the 1 4th day of April, 1865, murder Abraham Lincoln, and did 
 attempt to murder William H. Seward, and did lie in wait to 
 murder Andrew Johnson, in pursuance of said conspiracy, and in 
 the purpose and intent thereof, as therein alleged. And they 
 further say, that if, in the light of all this evidence, any persons 
 shall feel like erecting a monument to the memory of Jefferson 
 Davis, this is a free country; let them do so, and take the conse- 
 quences that cannot fail to result to their reputation and memory 
 in the minds of a patriotic, intelligent, and right-minded people, 
 reared up under the influences and advantages of our free and 
 liberal institutions of civil administration, and of their uplifting 
 power and elevating influences on the people, who must, under 
 these favoring conditions, ultimately reach the true ideal of human 
 development. 
 
 211
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 
 
 THE presence of John H. Surratt in Washington City on the day 
 of the assassination was proven before the Military Commission 
 by a single witness. This witness, however, was a man who was 
 personally acquainted with him, and who swore positively to hav- 
 ing seen him on that day. His testimony was given about a 
 month after the event, and the circumstance was fresh in his mem- 
 ory. He stated the time of the day when, and the place where, 
 he saw him ; described his dress, the kind of hat he was wearing, 
 etc., etc. He was clear in his statements, could have had no 
 motives for swearing falsely, and it is scarcely possible that he 
 could have been mistaken. From the description given by Ser- 
 geant Dye of the man who acted as monitor, calling the time three 
 times in succession at short intervals, the last time calling "Ten 
 minutes past ten," in front of the theatre, it will be remembered 
 that the writer came to the conclusion that this was John H. Sur- 
 ratt. This conclusion was verified by this same witness on the 
 trial of Surratt. Sergeant Dye had taken a seat on the platform 
 in front of the theatre, and just before the conclusion of the second 
 act of the play had his attention arrested by an elegantly-dressed 
 man, who came out of the vestibule, and commenced to converse 
 with a ruffianly-looking fellow. Then another joined them, and 
 the three conversed together. The one who appeared to be the 
 the leader said, " I think he will come out now," referring, as the 
 witness supposed, to the President. The President's carriage 
 stood near the platform on which the witness was sitting, and one 
 of the three passed out as far as the curbstone and looked into 
 the carriage. It would seem that they had anticipated the possi- 
 bility of his departure at the close of the second act, and had
 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 21 3 
 
 intended to assassinate him at the moment of his passing out of 
 the door. Quite a crowd of people came out at the conclusion 
 of the act, and Booth and his companions stood near the door, 
 awaiting the opportunity which they sought. When most of the 
 crowd had returned into the theatre, and the would-be assassins 
 saw that the President would remain until the close of the play, 
 they then began to prepare for his assassination in the theatre. 
 The writer concludes, from a careful consideration of all the cir- 
 cumstances, that this was a provisional arrangement, in case their 
 plan to murder him at the door should fail. 
 
 Booth and the ruffianly-looking fellow kept their stations by the 
 door, to make sure of not missing the opportunity of which they 
 had planned to avail themselves, whilst the other stepped up and 
 looked at the clock in the vestibule, and called the time. He 
 then immediately walked rapidly up the street. He returned in 
 a few minutes, and looking at the clock again called the time, and 
 again walked away rapidly up the street. Very soon he returned 
 again, and called the time louder than before, " Ten minutes past 
 ten ! " and walking rapidly away, did not return. 
 
 Booth had left the side of his companion before this long 
 enough to go into the saloon, where he drank a glass of whiskey, 
 and then, as soon as the time had been called the third time, went 
 at once into the theatre, and in less than ten minutes thereafter 
 fired the fatal shot. It is evident that it had been arranged 
 between Booth and Payne that the assassination of Secretary 
 Seward should be concurrent with that of President Lincoln ; and 
 that a system of signals had been arranged, of which the man who 
 called the time was acting as monitor. The suspicions of Ser- 
 geant Dye having been aroused by the conduct of these three 
 men, he naturally scanned them very closely, and testified that 
 he had a good view, not only of the person, but of the face and 
 features of the man who called the time, and had his image indeli- 
 bly impressed on his memory. Upon being confronted by Sur- 
 ratt on his trial, he unhesitatingly and positively declared that he 
 was the man. In addition to Reed and Dye, who testified before 
 the Commission, there were nine others who testified on the trial 
 of Surratt to having seen him that day in the City of Washington.
 
 214 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 All of these persons, except four, were personally acquainted with 
 him, and could not have been mistaken, as they were able to give 
 the time of day when, and the place where, they saw him, as also, 
 in the case of most of them, to describe his person, dress, hat, 
 moustache, etc., etc., without any discrepancies in their testimony. 
 The other four, though not acquainted with him, identified him 
 before the jury, more or less positively, as the man they had seen. 
 It is worthy of remark that though they all testified with more 
 or less of particularity in their descriptions of his person, his dress, 
 his hat, his moustache, and as to the time of day when, and the 
 place where, they had seen him, there was nothing incongruous or 
 contradictory in their testimony. One witness, a colored woman, 
 Susan Ann Jackson, who was in service at Mrs. Surratt's at 
 the time, and had been for three or four weeks previous to the 
 assassination, testified that under the direction of Mrs. Surratt she 
 had made tea for the prisoner after the family and boarders had 
 left the table on the night of the assassination, and that Mrs. 
 Surratt had said to her on that occasion, " This is my son," and 
 had asked her if he did not look like Annie. She said this was 
 the first and only time she had seen him until she met him on his 
 trial, and then she positively identified him as the man she had 
 waited upon that night. The time was impressed on her memory 
 by its being Good Friday, and the night of the assassination. 
 Several of the witnesses who testified to his presence in the city 
 on that day also testified that they saw him in company with 
 Booth, and one, at least, with Booth and O'Laughlin. Surratt 
 himself told his old acquaintance, St. Marie, with whom he renewed 
 his acquaintanceship in the ranks of the Papal Zouaves at Velletri, 
 in Italy, that he left Washington early on the morning of the I5th 
 of April, disguised as an English tourist ; and that he had a very 
 hard time to make his escape. As the trains leaving Washington 
 for Baltimore on the morning of the 1 5th were thoroughly scru- 
 tinized by the police before being permitted to leave, it is uncer- 
 tain whether Surratt's disguise sufficed to get him through, or 
 whether he went a part or all of the way to Baltimore on horse- 
 back. There was some evidence on this trial tending to the con- 
 clusion that he had escaped from the city on horseback. The
 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 21$ 
 
 next place we get track of him in his flight is at the railroad 
 depot at Burlington, Vt., on the early morning of the i8th of 
 April. Here he turns up with a rough-looking man, no doubt 
 the ruffianly-looking fellow who was seen with him and Booth in 
 front of the theatre on the night of the assassination. They had 
 crossed Lake Champlain on a boat that ran from White Hall to 
 Rouse's Point, on the night of the i/th, and landed at Burlington, 
 in order to take the train to Montreal. This was the first trip the 
 boat had made that season, and it was four hours late in reaching 
 Burlington, arriving there about midnight. They had to wait for 
 the morning train, which was due at four o'clock A.M. of the i8th. 
 They requested permission to sleep at the depot, and the night 
 watchman allowed them to sleep on the benches. He awakened 
 them in time for the train, and after daylight, when sweeping the 
 floor, he found a handkerchief under the bench where the taller of 
 the two had slept, and upon examining it after it was fairly light 
 found it marked, "J. H. Surratt 2." At Essex Junction, where 
 they changed trains for St. Albans, these two travellers made the 
 change, and were found by the conductor on his passing through 
 the train standing on the platform outside. He asked them for 
 their fare, and was told that they had no money. Surratt did all 
 the talking. He represented that they were laboring men, had 
 been at work in New York, and had been unfortunate and lost 
 their money. He said they were now making their way back to 
 Canada, and were ready to promise that if he would carry them 
 through they would send him the fare as soon as they reached 
 their friends. The conductor reminded them of the necessity of 
 having money if they would travel. 
 
 Surratt disguised his speech, trying to use the dialect of a 
 Canadian ; but when he became excited from fear of being put 
 off the train he forgot his Cannuck, and talked in good square 
 English. The conductor also noticed that his hands were not 
 those of a laboring man, and so concluded that the men were traveling 
 incognito. This was on the early morning of the i8th of April. 
 They arrived at St. Albans for breakfast. At the table they 
 found everybody excited, and upon Surratt's inquiring what it 
 meant, his next neighbor at the table, an old gentleman, informed
 
 2l6 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 him that the President had been assassinated, to which Surratt 
 replied that " The news was too good to be true." The old 
 gentleman then handed him a paper, and on looking it over he 
 saw his own name given as one of the assassins. He dropped the 
 paper, and found that he did not want any more breakfast. On 
 passing out into the next room, he heard some one say that Sur- 
 ratt must be in town, or had passed through, as his handkerchief 
 had been found in the street; when, upon feeling for his hand- 
 kerchief, he found that he had lost it. They then left the place as 
 quickly as possible, narrowly escaping arrest. He understood 
 that his handkerchief had been picked up in the street of St. 
 Albans, and no doubt, in the excitement, the news had taken 
 that shape, but, as we have seen, he lost it at Burlington depot, 
 and so the news must have been telegraphed to St. Albans. 
 
 It is not known how they traveled from St. Albans to Mont- 
 real, but it is most probable that they walked across the coun- 
 try. We find Surratt's name on the hotel register at Montreal, 
 where he arrived at about two o'clock on the i8th of April, he 
 having been absent from that place from the I2th. This had 
 been to him an eventful week, full of difficulties and hazards ; but 
 he may now feel safe, as he has reached the abode of the chief 
 conspirators, his employers, and is ready to claim his reward. 
 He can feel that he is in the midst of sympathizing friends. 
 But, alas ! a criminal can never feel safe. An angry God is ever 
 on the track of the guilty conscience. As it was with the first 
 murderer, so it must be with every murderer, a fugitive and a 
 vagabond he is compelled to be. He had hardly recorded his 
 name on the hotel register when he was informed that detectives 
 were on the look-out for him, and he was at once spirited away 
 to the house of a Mr. Porterfield. This man was a Southerner, 
 who belonged to Thompson's cabal, but who had abjured his 
 allegiance to his country and taken the oath of allegiance to the 
 Queen of England, and had thus become a British subject. He 
 knew all about the conspiracy, and the means that had been 
 employed to carry it into effect ; and was waiting and watching 
 anxiously for the return of his co-conspirators that had been sent 
 to Washington on their mission of assassinations. He at once
 
 JOHN H. SURRATT.
 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 217 
 
 took Surratt into his house, and kept him secreted there for 
 several days. Finding the detectives who were in pursuit of the 
 fugitive vigilant and determined in their search, Porterfield became 
 fearful that he could not keep his charge concealed, and so made 
 arrangements to get him into a place of greater security. 
 
 At this point we meet with a new element amongst the Canada 
 conspirators, viz., the Roman Catholic priesthood. Porterfield had 
 arranged with Father Boucher to take his charge in custody, and 
 keep him concealed. This Father was rector of the parish of St. 
 Liboire, a newly-settled place, about forty-five miles from Montreal 
 an out-of-the-way place, and so a good place in which to hide 
 him away. The arrangements had been made in advance with this 
 Father to take charge of Surratt, and keep him secreted at his 
 house. He was conveyed there by one )oseph F. Du Tilley, who 
 seems to have been priest Boucher's right hand man. The strata- 
 gem to get him away from Montreal was as follows : two carriages 
 drove up in front of Porterfield's house late in the afternoon, when 
 two persons, dressed as nearly as possible alike, went out together ; 
 one of these got into one of the carriages, and the other into the 
 other, when they drove away in different directions. Father 
 Boucher appeared at the trial of Surratt as a voluntary witness 
 for the defense, and without any apparent sense of shame con- 
 victed himself, by his own testimony, of being an accomplice after 
 the fact. We think that the testimony he gave warrants the con- 
 clusion, also, that another priest, Father La Pierre, placed him- 
 self in the same category. Both of these Fathers took Surratt 
 into their houses, and kept him concealed, the first for three, 
 and the latter for two months, knowing him to be charged with 
 being a conspirator to the assassination of the President of the 
 United States. 
 
 Father Boucher's parish being in an out-of-the-way country 
 place, it was only necessary that he should constantly exercise a 
 prudent vigilance in behalf of his charge. He was visited fre- 
 quently by his friends whilst staying with Boucher ; at one time 
 three or four of these came together, and stayed three or four, 
 days with him. The time was spent in hunting, sporting, and 
 revelry. It was very remarkable, however, that Father Boucher
 
 2l8 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 could not remember the names of any of these friends. Being a 
 volunteer witness for the defense, he could not give their names 
 without implicating persons whom he did not desire to com- 
 promise ; hence, no doubt, his convenient Jesuitical failure of 
 memory. Perhaps he could not have given their names without 
 injury to the cause he desired to help. He could only say that 
 some of their names were English names, using the word English 
 in contra distinction from French or French-Canadian, in which 
 sense it implied not really English, but American, Beverly 
 Tucker for instance, perhaps Porterfield, and likely, also, La Pierre. 
 As two of these, Beverly Tucker and La Pierre, along with Boucher, 
 accompanied Surratt from Montreal to Quebec, and did not leave 
 him until they had seen him safe on board the ocean steamer, 
 " Peruvian," when he finally was sent to Europe, it would seem 
 highly probable that we have rightly surmised who were his vis- 
 itors on the occasion referred to. Surratt was not kept in close 
 confinement by Father Boucher, but his safety from discovery 
 and arrest was looked after with cunning vigilance. At length 
 the time came when it was thought safe and advisable to transfer 
 the fugitive back to Montreal. This was affected as secretly as 
 had been his removal from that place to the parish of St. Liboire. 
 Father La Pierre now took him in charge. He had provided 
 for him a secluded upstairs room at his father's house, right wider 
 the shadow of the bishop 's window. This Father had been a visitor 
 of Surratt at the lonely parish of St. Liboire, and now took him 
 under his especial protection. He kept him concealed, and never 
 allowed him to go out until after nightfall, and then never alone, 
 but always accompanied him. La Pierre thus kept his charge 
 safely from the latter part of July until the 5th of September, 
 1865. During all of this time he was visited regularly twice a 
 week, on Mondays and Thursdays, by Father Boucher, who always 
 remained over night with him at each visit. How can we account 
 for this great interest taken by these two priests in secreting the 
 murderer of the head of the greatest nation on earth, and that 
 with a full knowledge that he stood charged with this crime, and 
 that a great reward was offered for his apprehension? How can 
 we consider them less guilty, in a moral point of view, than Sur- 
 ratt himself?
 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN //. SURRATT. 219 
 
 But at length a time came when it was thought safe and 
 advisable to send him abroad. 
 
 Early in September Father La Pierre sought an interview with 
 Dr. Lewis J. A. McMillen, surgeon on board the ocean steamer 
 " Peruvian," which was to sail on the i6th of that month from 
 Quebec for Liverpool, and made arrangements to put in his care 
 for the passage a friend of his by the name of McCarthy, who, 
 for certain reasons, desired to embark secretly on the voyage. 
 The doctor took a steamer at Montreal, on the I5th, to join his 
 ship, which was to sail on the following day. 
 
 Boucher and La Pierre conveyed Surratt in a covered carriage, 
 and went with him on board the same steamer on which the 
 doctor had taken passage. La Pierre was in disguise, inasmuch 
 as he was dressed in citizen's dress. They had also disguised 
 Surratt by coloring his hair, painting his face, and putting spec- 
 tacles over his eyes. On the passage from Montreal to Quebec, 
 they kept him locked up in the state-room occupied jointly by 
 him and Father La Pierre. When they reached Quebec and went 
 on board the transport that was to convey them to the ocean 
 steamer " Peruvian," in which they were to sail, the doctor was 
 there introduced to Beverly Tucker, who had also felt enough of 
 interest in Surratt's case to induce him to accompany him from 
 Montreal to Quebec, and who stood in that relation to his case'in 
 the knowledge of Fathers La Pierre and Boucher that they could 
 safely take him into their confidence in their plans for conveying 
 Surratt out of the country. This trio saw Surratt safely on board 
 the " Peruvian," and then bade him good-by. The interest thus 
 manifested by Tucker in getting Surratt safely away confirms the 
 testimony given before the Military Commission, showing him to 
 have been justly charged by the government with being a member 
 of the great conspiracy. Before parting from his charge Father 
 La Pierre requested Dr. McMillen to let Surratt stay in his room 
 until after the vessel should have sailed. 
 
 Surratt is not an innocent man carrying a good conscience, 
 that enables him to look every man he meets squarely in the face. 
 He is a fugitive and a vagabond, carrying the weight of a terrible 
 crime in his memory a weight that neither time nor distance
 
 22O ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 can efface. He is haunted by his fears, having before him the 
 vision of a detective and of capture ; and so he skulks and hides 
 from the phantom of an American detective which he cannot 
 banish from his mind. 
 
 The vessel being now on her way, and in British waters, the 
 fugitive ventured forth, and naturally sought the company of the 
 surgeon of the vessel in whose care he had been placed, and 
 whom he regarded as his friend. His social nature yearned for 
 companionship, and all the more as a means of relief from a 
 guilty conscience. Does he now enjoy a sense of security? To 
 him this is impossible. He scanned closely every passenger he 
 met, that phantom of a detective being ever present to his 
 imagination. He sees a gentleman whom he takes to be an 
 American. He seeks his friend McMillen, and discloses to him 
 his fears, saying: "I think that man is an American detective." 
 Upon being asked by the doctor what he had done that he should 
 be afraid of a detective, he replied : "If you knew all the things I 
 have done, it would make you stare." Murder is a crime that 
 will out. It imposes a weight of guilt upon the conscience that 
 will, at some unguarded moment, let the fearful secret slip through 
 the door of the lips that are most firmly closed by a purpose of 
 concealment. The doctor reassurred him, by reminding him that 
 he was on board a British ship sailing on British waters, and that 
 he had nothing to fear from an American detective. Surratt then 
 drew a small four-barrelled revolver from his vest pocket, and 
 remarked : " I don't care ; this will settle him." The doctor now 
 began to feel a great interest in his charge, arising from the sus- 
 picion that he was John H. Surratt. The voyage across the 
 Atlantic occupied nine or ten days. The fugitive was so full of 
 his terrible secret that he could not keep quiet. Every day he 
 sought opportunities to converse with the doctor privately, and at 
 every interview the history of his crimes kept leaking out. He 
 was nervous, and constantly haunted by his fears ; so that he 
 could never hear any one coming up behind him without starting 
 and looking around. Amongst his important revelations to the 
 doctor were the following : that he had for a considerable time 
 previously to the assassination been a bearer of despatches from
 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN If. SURRATT. 221 
 
 Richmond to the Confederate agents in Canada; that he had at 
 one time carried to them from Richmond thirty thousand dollars, 
 and at another time seventy thousand dollars ; that he arrived in 
 Montreal the last time on the 6th of April, with despatches from 
 Davis and Benjamin, thus confirming the testimony of Conover 
 and Merritt before the Military Commission. These despatches 
 he claimed to have delivered to Thompson. After the military 
 trial, and previous to the trial of Surratt, the witness, Conover, 
 had been convicted of perjury; but this does not discredit the 
 testimony he gave before the Commission, as it was confirmed by 
 other witnesses who stand unimpeached, and is here also con- 
 firmed by Surratt himself in regard to one of its most important 
 points. It will be remembered that Conover testified to having 
 been present at a meeting of the Canada conspirators in Montreal, 
 on the 6th of April, 1865, and that John H. Surratt, who was 
 present, had just arrived from Richmond, bringing a cipher 
 despatch from Jefferson Davis, and also a despatch from his 
 Secretary of State, Benjamin, and that Thompson, laying his 
 hand on these despatches, said : " This makes the thing all 
 right " ; and that active measures were at once entered upon for 
 putting the assassination plot into effect. Now Surratt comes to 
 McMillen five months later, on the face of the broad Atlantic, and 
 confirms Conover's testimony in its major part. He also related 
 to the doctor the particulars of his trip to Richmond late in 
 March, 1865, when he was accompanied by a woman, who by 
 other testimony was shown to have been Mrs. Slater, alias Brown, 
 the rebel spy and blockade runner. The arrangement was made 
 whilst he was in Canada for him to meet her in New York and 
 accompany her to Richmond, which he did, passing through 
 Washington. In this statement the testimony of Wiechmann is 
 confirmed. Surratt related to the doctor the difficulty they had 
 in crossing the Potomac. They were hailed by a gun-boat, and 
 called upon to surrender. They said they would do so, but 
 waited for the small boat that had been sent to bring them, in to 
 come alongside, when they suddenly arose, poured a volley into 
 the crew of the small boat, and then, in the confusion that ensued, 
 made their escape. There were twelve or fifteen crossing with
 
 222 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 him at the time, and all were armed with revolvers. Having 
 gotten within the Confederate lines south of Fredericksburg, they 
 were being pushed along by negroes on a hand-car when they 
 met five or six forlorn, half-starved Union soldiers, who had made 
 their escape from a rebel prison and were striking for freedom. 
 At the suggestion of this wicked woman they shot them down, 
 and passed on, leaving them lying on the ground. 
 
 He also related to the doctor the plot, at one time discussed, to 
 capture the President and carry him to Richmond, but said it was 
 found to be impracticable, and so was abandoned. He claimed 
 that Booth and himself had spent ten thousand dollars in prepara- 
 tions for carrying out their plot. When we remember that neither 
 Booth nor Surratt had any means of their own, and yet were car- 
 rying on an enterprise that called for so large an outlay of money, 
 we may well ask who stood behind them and furnished the funds? 
 
 But if we take all of the testimony we have before us into con- 
 sideration we need have no difficulty in answering this question. 
 Jacob Thompson was the treasurer of the concern, and his govern- 
 ment kept him amply supplied with means. It will be remembered 
 that Clay said, " We have plenty of money to pay for anything 
 that is worth paying for." After the assassination Surratt was 
 in some way supplied with money to support him for a year, and 
 carry him to Italy. In regard to the assassination, Surratt told 
 McMillen that he received a letter from Booth at Montreal, in the 
 beginning of the week of the assassination, which was written in 
 New York, calling him to Washington at once, as it had become 
 necessary to change their plans and to act. quickly. He started at 
 once, and telegraphed Booth at New York City from Elmira, but 
 found that he had already gone to Washington. In regard to his 
 escape from Washington after the assassination, he related all of 
 the incidents that have already been given in regard to his experi- 
 ence at St. Albans, the loss of his handkerchief, his hasty depart- 
 ure from that place, etc., etc. 
 
 Every day during the voyage, he was filling McMillen's ears with 
 these stories, and as they neared the end of the voyage he began 
 to revolve in his mind whether he would land on the Irish coast or 
 go on to Liverpool. He asked McMillen which he had better do,
 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 22$ 
 
 but McMillan, who must have known by this time who this 
 McCarthy was, declined to give him any advice. Surratt finally 
 said he would go on to Liverpool, but could not dismiss from his 
 mind the fear that he might there meet a detective awaiting his 
 arrival. Pulling out his revolver, he said, " If he did, this would 
 settle him." Upon McMillen making the reply that " they would 
 make short work of it with him in England if he should do such a 
 thing as that," he said, "It is for that very reason I would do it, for 
 I would rather be hung by an English than a Yankee hangman, 
 and I know I would be hung should I be taken back to the 
 United States." Upon sighting the coast of Ireland he exclaimed, 
 " Here is a foreign country at last ! I only wish that I may live 
 two years to go back to the United States and serve Andy Johnson 
 as we served Lincoln." 
 
 When the " Peruvian " was about to land her passengers and 
 mail at an Irish port, Surratt sent for McMillen, and upon the latter 
 expressing surprise at finding him dressed, and prepared to land, 
 saying that " he thought he had concluded to go on with them to 
 Liverpool," Surratt replied, "that he had thought the matter over 
 carefully, and had concluded that it would be safer for him to land 
 there, as it was then nearly midnight." McMillen then said to him, 
 " You have been telling me a great many things, and I have come 
 to the conclusion that the name by which you were introduced to 
 me is not your true name. Will you be kind enough to tell me who 
 you are?" The fugitive then whispered in his ear, " I am Surratt." 
 He then asked the doctor to send for the barkeeper, and before 
 leaving the ship drank so freely of brandy that the doctor found 
 it necessary to request the chief officer at the gangway to take him 
 by the arm and see him safely on shore. On the Wednesday fol- 
 lowing, Surratt called on the doctor at his boarding house in Birk- 
 enhead, opposite the city of Liverpool, and requested him to go- 
 over with him to the city to find a house to which he had been 
 directed to go. The doctor had, on the previous day (which was 
 the day after the " Peruvian " had landed in Liverpool), visited the 
 Vice-Consul of the United States, Mr. Wildings, and made a sworn 
 statement of the facts that Surratt had revealed to him, his purpose 
 being to aid the United States in securing his arrest. He told the
 
 224 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Vice-Consul that he was only making a partial statement of Surratt's 
 confessions during the voyage, deeming it only important that the 
 government should be informed of Surratt's arrival in Liverpool. 
 The doctor testified, on Surratt's trial, that Mr. Wilding told him 
 that he had been informed by Mr. Adams, the American Minister 
 at London, that the government was not going to prosecute Surratt ; 
 that it hadn't anything against him. 
 
 Of all this Surratt was ignorant, and the doctor went with him, 
 as requested, across the river from Birkenhead to Liverpool, and 
 finding a cab, gave the driver directions where to take him, and 
 then parted from him. Surratt visited him again before the doctor 
 started on the return voyage, and requested him to see a party 
 in Montreal, and bring him some money. The doctor did as re- 
 quested, but . the person on whom he was requested to call said 
 he had no money for him. The rebellion had collapsed ; the plot 
 had failed of its purpose, as it had also failed in part of its fulfill- 
 ment ; and now Surratt was to suffer the fate of Hyams be 
 shaken off and disowned. On the doctor's return to Liverpool 
 Surratt called on him, but only to learn that there was no money 
 for him. This was the last time that McMillen saw him until he 
 saw him on his trial. 
 
 Surratt is next found in Italy, in the army of the Pope, where 
 he had enlisted as a soldier in the ninth company of Zouaves 
 about the middle of April, 1866. He had found friends after his 
 escape from Washington, who had supported him, kept him 
 secreted, watched over his safety, planned his trip from Mon- 
 treal to Italy, and furnished him money for the expenses of his 
 journey; friends who, no doubt, were accomplices before, as 
 well as after, the fact, for we find them waiting and watching for 
 his return to Montreal after the assassination, and ready to hurry 
 him off into seclusion. He was to them a stranger ; only known 
 to them as a fugitive from his country, charged with the highest 
 crime that a man could commit, a blow at the nation's life, by 
 murdering the nation's head, a crime against liberty and hu- 
 manity. These could not have been his friends for mere personal 
 reasons, but from sympathy in the general purpose of this great 
 crime, the subversion of our free institutions.
 
 FLIGHT AND CAPTURE OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 22$ 
 
 Certainly he may now feel safe, being hid away under the alias 
 of Watson, in the ranks of the Papal Zouaves, in the town of Vel- 
 letri, in Italy, forty miles from Rome. But no ! Here he meets 
 Henry Benjamin St. Marie, an old acquaintance of his, and now 
 a fellow-soldier in his company. 
 
 About the i8th or ipth of June, 1866, during an afternoon's 
 walk, he, in his confidences with his old acquaintance, tells of the 
 events of the I4th of April, 1865, and of the difficulty he had in 
 making his escape from Washington on the morning of the I5th. 
 He said he left disguised as an English traveler and succeeded in 
 making his way out. 
 
 The American Consul was informed of his whereabouts, and 
 upon the matter being brought to the notice of the Pope through 
 Cardinal Antonelli, an order was issued for his arrest 'and delivery 
 to the United States authorities. He was thus arrested by his 
 comrades in the service, and kept under guard, but succeeded 
 in making his escape from his guards (if we may believe the 
 story), by making a bold dash down a precipice, at the risk 
 of his life. Having thus escaped he made his way to Naples, and 
 thence to Alexandria, in Egypt. What must have been his sur- 
 prise on reaching the latter place to find an officer awaiting his 
 arrival, and ready to make him a prisoner. He was put in chains, 
 placed on board the United States man-of-war ship " Swatara," 
 and brought back to Washington, where he was held to answer 
 for his crime.
 
 PART II. 
 
 REVIEW OF THE TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 
 
 227
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 
 
 ON the 4th day of February, 1867, the grand jury for the 
 county of Washington, District of Columbia, found an indict- 
 ment against John H. Surratt for the murder of Abraham 
 Lincoln. The indictment contained four counts. The first count 
 charged him with the murder of one Abraham Lincoln at the 
 
 O 
 
 county of Washington, District of Columbia, on the I4th day of 
 April, 1865. The second count charged that John H. Surratt 
 and John Wilkes Booth did, on the I4th day of April, 1865, make 
 an assault upon one Abraham Lincoln in the county and district 
 aforesaid, and that John Wilkes Booth did murder the said Abra- 
 ham Lincoln. 
 
 The third count charged that John H. Surratt and John Wilkes 
 Booth, David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Mary 
 E. Surratt, and others to the jury unknown, did, on the I4th day 
 of April, 1865, in the county and district aforesaid, make an 
 assault upon one Abraham Lincoln, and that he was murdered by 
 the hand of John Wilkes Booth. 
 
 The fourth count charged that John Wilkes Booth, John H. 
 Surratt, David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, 
 Mary E. Surratt, and divers other persons to the jury unknown, 
 on the 1 4th day of April, 1865, at the county of Washington, 
 District of Columbia, did unlawfully and wickedly combine, con- 
 federate, and conspire and agree together feloniously to kill and 
 murder one Abraham Lincoln, and that the said John Wilkes 
 Booth, John H. Surratt, David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, 
 Lewis Payne, Mary E. Surratt, and other persons to the jurors 
 unknown, did, on the I4th day of April, 1865, in pursuance of 
 said unlawful conspiracy, make an assault, and that the said John 
 
 229
 
 23O ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Wilkes Booth, in pursuance of said unlawful and wicked conspiracy, 
 did kill and murder one Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 It will be noticed that the legal allegations designating the 
 crime used in this indictment are the same as are used in the 
 charge and specfications on which Surratt's co-conspirators were 
 arraigned and tried before the Commission, except that the word 
 " traitorously," there used, is omitted in this indictment. This 
 indictment in its first count charged the prisoner on trial with the 
 murder of Abraham Lincoln. This was done on the principle 
 that when two or more persons conspire together to do an unlaw- 
 ful act, or to do that which is lawful by unlawful means, the 
 act of any one of the parties thus conspiring, in pursuance of said 
 conspiracy becomes the act of all. They are held equally guilty 
 in law. To make this count good, it was only necessary to prove 
 the existence of a conspiracy to do this murder that it was done 
 by one of the conspirators, and that the person indicted was a 
 member of said conspiracy at the time the murder was committed, 
 and that he aided and abetted and performed his part, whatever 
 that might be, in accomplishing the object of the conspiracy. 
 The second count charges that Surratt and Booth murdered 
 Abraham Lincoln, and that the murder was actually accomplished 
 by the hand of Booth. This implies that they acted together for 
 the accomplishment of the crime and would be made good only 
 by proving the presence of John H. Surratt at the time and place 
 of its commisson, and that he was there aiding and abetting Booth 
 in the alleged murder. The third count simply enlarges the con- 
 spiracy by designating others known to have been included in its 
 membership, alleging also, that there were still others belonging 
 to it, who were unknown to the jury, and that in pursuance of its 
 object and purpose the murder was done by the hand of one of 
 its members. 
 
 The fourth count more distinctly and emphatically alleges the 
 combining, confederating, conspiring, and agreeing together of 
 these persons to do this murder, and that it was so done by one 
 of its members, viz., Booth. This would require proof to be 
 made of such combination and agreeing together to commit this 
 crime on the part of the persons named in the indictment ; that
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 2$ I 
 
 the crime was perpetrated, and that the prisoner was a member of 
 said conspiracy at the time of its perpetration. It will be 
 remarked that in addition to the word " traitorously," used in the 
 charge and specifications against the members of this conspiracy 
 who were tried before the Commission, the political purpose of 
 the conspiracy, as there alleged, is here omitted. 
 
 The real purpose of the conspiracy was to aid the existing 
 rebellion in its purpose and effort to overthrow the govern- 
 ment by assassinating the President, Vice-President, Secretary of 
 State, and the general in command of the armies of the United 
 States. 
 
 The parties tried before a military commission were tried under 
 the laws of war, during a state of war, and were brought under 
 the jurisdiction of a military tribunal because they were secret 
 active enemies of the government, and were engaged in an effort 
 to aid the rebellion. This required that the word traitorously 
 should be used, and that the treasonable purpose of the con- 
 spiracy should be alleged. This member of the conspiracy 
 was indicted for his participation in this crime ; but he had made 
 good his escape, and had not been brought within the jurisdiction 
 of the authorities that could hold him to account until long after 
 the rebellion had been suppressed, and peace had been declared ; 
 and under the political policy which had been adopted by the 
 government in dealing with the question of treason and traitors in 
 connection with the war, he could only be indicted for his crime, 
 as it was a violation of civil law. Hence these omissions in 
 framing this indictment. 
 
 The case is unique in the history of American jurisprudence. 
 A number of his co-conspirators had been tried before a military 
 commission under an arraignment that fully set forth, not only the 
 crime of murder and a conspiracy to murder, but also the fact 
 that it involved much more than the mere killing of a man a 
 private individual that it was a conspiracy to murder the 
 President of the United States, a treasonable conspiracy to sub- 
 vert the government. It was a blow aimed at the nation's life. 
 He who murders the humblest citizen sets at naught God's image 
 impressed on man at his creation, and so commits a crime not
 
 232 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN, 
 
 only against a fellow man and a crime against society, but a 
 crime against God. When Noah became the new head and pro- 
 genitor of the race after the flood, God, who had just destroyed 
 the world of mankind because they had filled the world with 
 violence and blood, gave this law: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood 
 by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God created 
 he him." God is also the author of civil government, as we read 
 in the thirteenth of Romans : " Let every soul be subject to the 
 higher powers, for there is no power but of God. The powers 
 that be are ordained of God." Here we learn that civil government 
 is the ordinance of God ; and so he who assassinates a ruler, not 
 only sets at naught God's image in man, but despises his 
 ordinance for the welfare, protection, and peace of society. 
 
 This treasonable aspect of his crime, although it could not, for 
 the reasons stated, be embraced in his indictment, yet, as we 
 shall see, was a matter of which the court and jury could take 
 judicial cognizance. 
 
 Here we have a man on trial for participation in the murder of 
 a President; yet, in his indictment, he is only charged with 
 the murder of one Abraham Lincoln. His fellow conspirators 
 had been convicted of murdering Abraham Lincoln, President of 
 the United States, and Commander-in-Chief of the armies and 
 navy of the United States, and of attempting to kill William H. 
 Seward, Secretary of State of the United States, and lying in wait 
 to kill Andrew Johnson, Vice-President of the United States, and 
 Ulysses S. Grant, commander in the field of the armies of the 
 United States, for the purpose of overthrowing the government of 
 the United States in aid of the existing rebellion. Under this 
 charge they had been condemned and some of them executed. 
 This was the result of a military trial in time of war. 
 
 This trial had been denounced by every rebel sympathizer in 
 the land. Great lawyers and statesmen had argued with 
 vehemence that these assassins had been tried by an unconstitu- 
 tional tribunal. The dead President had been denounced as a 
 tyrant, and usurper of authority ; one who had trampled under 
 foot the Constitution he had sworn to protect and defend by pro- 
 claiming martial law, and suspending the writ of habeas corpus;
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 233 
 
 and even in prosecuting a war to compel rebellious States to 
 submit to the lawful authority of the government, and now they 
 would tie up the hands of the government by insisting that it could 
 only try these traitorous assassins, constitutionally, before a civil 
 court. The country stood divided on this contention, just as it did on 
 the issues of the war, and partisan feeling ran as high in this discus- 
 sion as it did on the right of secession or the right of the govern- 
 ment to compel submission to its authority. 
 
 The sophistry of this reasoning, when applied to a time of war, 
 was made apparent by the results of this trial of John H. Surratt 
 before a civil court, in time of peace. No government could pro- 
 tect itself under such a construction of the Constitution, because 
 no government could ever convict a traitorous assassin before a 
 jury made up of its enemies as well as its friends. 
 
 This trial necessarily aroused the passions and prejudices 
 engendered by the war that gave occasion for the crime of the 
 prisoner, and could not be conducted on a strictly judicial and 
 legal basis. It was just as impossible now, almost two years after 
 the close of the war, as it would have been at the time of the trial 
 by a military commission of Surratt's fellows in crime ; and a con- 
 viction by a jury in a civil court was just as impossible now as it 
 would have been then because a jury of partisans embracing those 
 of both sides politically can never be expected to come to an 
 agreement in a case that appeals to their partisan feelings. This 
 case was unique then, because it was the first case of a man on trial 
 before a civil court for the murder of the civil head of the nation, 
 the President of the United States, and although since that time 
 another has been tried, convicted, and executed, for the murder of 
 a President, the case "of Surratt is still unique in this, that his crime 
 was overshadowed by a higher crime out of which it grew the 
 crime of treason of being engaged in a treasonable conspiracy 
 to overthrow his government, and yet the circumstances surround- 
 ing the case were such that this could not be alleged in the indict- 
 ment, but were of such a nature that this phase of his crime could 
 not be excluded from view. 
 
 On the day appointed for the trial of John H. Surratt a very 
 large number of people asssembled, and all were deeply interested
 
 234 
 
 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 in his case. The court house was crowded, and it was remarked by 
 a most intelligent observer that the appearance and spirit of the 
 crowd wore more of the air of a political convention than that of 
 men assembled to participate in, and witness, the solemn scene of a 
 fellow-being on trial for his life. 
 
 The trial was before Judge Fisher of the Criminal Court of the 
 county of Washington, and District of Columbia, a man of great 
 legal ability, sterling patriotism, and high moral character. The 
 trial was a very lengthy one, and was hotly contested at every point 
 by counsel for and against the prisoner. He was defended by lawyers 
 who had made an enviable local reputation for ability in their pro- 
 fession. The District Attorney and his assistant were aided in the 
 prosecution by that pure patriot and eminent jurist, Judge Edwards 
 Pierrepont, of New York, who had been retained for that purpose 
 by Attorney General Stanbury and William H. Seward, Secretary 
 of State, and also by A. G. Riddle, Esq. 
 
 A deep partisan spirit was manifested by the defense from the 
 first opening of their mouths to the close of the case. Every effort 
 was made to drive the presiding judge from his fearless duty, but 
 without avail. He stood firm as the adamantine rock. He was 
 not only well qualified by his knowledge of law for his high position, 
 but was also impartial, honest, and brave in his decisions on the 
 very numerous questions of law and evidence that were raised by 
 counsel during the trial. His carriage during that most notable 
 trial must command the admiration of both friend and foe ; 
 and his decisions will ever command the respect of courts and 
 lawyers. 
 
 The loth day of June, 1867, was the day that had been set for 
 calling up this case. The United States was represented by the 
 District Attorney, E. C. Carrington, Esq., his assistant, Nathaniel 
 Wilson, Esq., and associate counsel, Messrs. Edwards Pierrepont and 
 A. G. Riddle. The prisoner was represented by Messrs. Joseph H. 
 Bradley, R. T. Merrick, and Joseph H. Bradley, Jr. At the earnest 
 solicitation of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, and 
 upon their representation that the trial would not last more than a 
 week, Judge Pierrepont had consented to assist in the prosecution. 
 He had just taken his seat in the convention which had met at
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 235 
 
 Albany to make a new constitution for the state of New York and 
 in which he had been appointed on the judiciary committee, and 
 left his place there to take a part in this trial. He was a Demo- 
 crat in politics, but loyal to the government in its struggle for the 
 perpetuation of its life. He had filled a judicial position in his own 
 State, was a man of great legal acumen, and was noted for his 
 patriotism and purity of character. 
 
 At ten o'clock on the roth day of June, 1867, the Court said: 
 " Gentlemen, this is the day assigned for the trial of John H. 
 Surratt, indicted for the murder of Abraham Lincoln, late President 
 of the United States. Are you ready to proceed?" To this Mr. 
 Bradley responded, " The prisoner is ready, Sir, and has been from 
 the first" In this answer we have sounded forth the key-note to 
 the spirit and policy of the defense. That candor and honesty of 
 purpose which always characterize a judicial frame of mind, would 
 have found their sufficient expression in the first clause of this 
 reply. The addition of the declaratory clause, "And has been 
 from the first" was not mere surplusage, but had in it the distinct 
 and manifest intent of boldly assuming in advance, and in the face 
 of all the adverse facts, the entire innocence of the prisoner. The 
 purpose was at this first moment of opportunity to present the 
 prisoner to the jury and to the country as one who was only 
 anxious for an opportunity to exculpate himself from all guilt. 
 The reader, if he chance to be of an imaginative turn of mind, will 
 be able when he reads this clause of the reply of the learned counsel 
 to see the assumed air of assurance and self-importance, and to 
 hear the arrogant and confident tone of voice with which it was 
 uttered. But without thus giving license to our imagination, the 
 addition of that clause to Mr. Bradley's reply, when contrasted with 
 the efforts of the prisoner to escape and evade a trial, creates an 
 impression of a sinister design that is calculated to throw a taint 
 of suspicion over all which is to follow in the line of the defense. 
 We shall have abundant occasion, as we proceed with the review of 
 this trial, to show that the suspicion which has been thus created is 
 fully justified. 
 
 John H. Surratt, as was shown by the evidence on the trial, was 
 in Washington on the I4th day of April, 1865, performing his part
 
 236 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 in the great crime. He was there aiding and abetting Booth, and 
 co-ordinating the agencies employed in the execution of the plot, 
 in order that all of the assassinations embraced in it might be simul- 
 taneously accomplished. Acting first as a counsellor and then as 
 monitor, passing rapidly up and down the street to keep himself in 
 communication with the fiends who were to do the work ; calling 
 the time loud enough to be heard at some distance ; then going up 
 the street to ascertain whether his warning could be heard by Payne, 
 and the last time with a face deadly pale and manifesting a degree 
 of nervous excitement, inseparable from the commission of such a 
 crime, he called the fatal hour, "Ten minutes past ten !" and van- 
 ished from sight. He has gone, but he has left an image imprinted 
 on the mind and memory of Sergeant Dye that can never be effaced. 
 He now becomes a fugitive in disguise, and hies away to Canada to 
 join the hellish clan that first conceived and then led him into his 
 crime. Here he was at once taken in charge by sympathising friends, 
 who kept him hidden away for five months and then, under a 
 disguise and an alias, sent him across the Atlantic, and finally to 
 Italy. 
 
 Here he is found in the Pope's army, and being charged with his 
 crime, which he has already confessed in words as well as by flight, 
 is arrested, escapes from his guards, flies to Naples and thence to 
 Egypt, is met and arrested at Alexandria, and brought back to the 
 scene of his crime, and is now put upon his trial. When asked if 
 he is ready, he replies through his counsel, " I am ready, and have 
 been from the first." Why, then, did he leave the city of his home, 
 his mother and sister and all of his youthful associations, in the 
 early morning of the I5th of April, 1865 ? Why did he fly to 
 Canada disguised as an English tourist? Why did he hide in 
 Canada for almost half a year, and then, in disguise, and under an 
 alias, flee to Europe? Why did he escape from his guards in Italy 
 at the risk (?) of his life, and flee to Egypt? Why, if innocent, 
 did he flee to the ends of the earth, and never cease his flight 
 until his way was hedged before him and further flight was impos- 
 sible? Was it because he was innocent and desired an opportunity 
 to prove his innocence to the world? In the presence of all these 
 facts, what a mistake it was to say, "And has been from the first."
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 237 
 
 In how much better taste it would have been to have simply replied, 
 "The prisoner is ready, your honor." 
 
 The District Attorney replied as follows : " If your honor please, 
 I am happy to be able to announce that the government is ready 
 to proceed with the trial. Before we proceed, however, sir, to 
 impannel a jury, we desire to submit a motion to the court, which 
 motion we have reduced to writing. With the permission of the 
 court I will now proceed to read it to your honor. It is as 
 follows : 
 
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 UNITED STATES AGAINST JOHN H. SURRATT. 
 Indictment, Murder. 
 
 " And now, at this day, to wit, on the loth day of June, A.D. 1867, come the United 
 States and the said John H. Surratt, by their respective attorneys; and the jurors of 
 the jury impanelled and summoned also come; and hereupon the said United States, 
 by their attorney, challenge the array of the said panel, because he saith that the said 
 jurors comprising said panel were not drawn according to law, and that the names from 
 which said jurors were drawn were not selected according to law', wherefore he prays 
 judgment, and that the said panel may be quashed." This motion, if your honor please, 
 is sustained by an affidavit which I hold in my hand, and which, with the permission of 
 your honor, I will now proceed to read. We think after this affidavit shall have been 
 read it will be found unnecessary to introduce any oral testimony." 
 
 The motion to quash this panel, it will be observed, rests on two 
 allegations : first, that the names were not drawn according to 
 law; and, second, that the names from which the jury had been 
 drawn were not selected according to law. These allegations were 
 fully sustained by the affidavit of Samuel E. Douglas, register of 
 Washington City, which was presented and read by the District 
 Attorney, and more fully afterwards, upon his oral examination. 
 The law governing the question was found in an act of Congress 
 of June i6th, 1862, entitled, "An act providing for the selection 
 of jurors to serve in the several courts of the District of 
 Columbia." 
 
 Under the provisions of this act the register of the city of 
 Washington, the clerk of the city of Georgetown, and the clerk 
 of the levy court of the county of Washington, District of Colum-
 
 238 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 bia, was each required to make out a list of names of persons 
 deemed by him to be most suitable for the duty of jurors, hav- 
 ing respect to the exemptions and qualifications specified in the 
 act. 
 
 The law required that such lists should be made out annually 
 on, or before, the first day of February. The register of the city 
 of Washington was to make out a list of names from which four 
 hundred should be selected : the clerk of the city of Georgetown 
 was to make out a list of names from which eighty were to be 
 selected ; and the clerk of the levy court of the county of Wash- 
 ington was to make out a list from which forty were to be selected, 
 and that such lists should be preserved, and any names that had 
 not been drawn for service during the year might be transferred to 
 the list made up for the subsequent year. 
 
 Having thus made out their respective lists, these officers were 
 required to meet together and jointly select from their respective 
 lists the number specified for each one. The names thus selected 
 were then to be written on separate and similar pieces of paper, 
 folded, or rolled up, so that the name could not be seen ; and 
 then deposited in a box provided for the purpose. The box was 
 required to be thoroughly shaken and sealed, and was then by 
 these three officers to be delivered into the custody of the clerk 
 of the court of Washington County for safe keeping. These offi- 
 cers were required to meet at the City Hall, in Washington City, 
 at least ten days before the commencement of each term of the 
 circuit court or of the criminal court, and there the clerk of the 
 circuit court was to publicly, and in their presence, break the seal 
 of the box and proceed to draw out the number of names required ; 
 and if it was a grand jury court, the first twenty-three names drawn 
 were to constitute the grand jury, and the next twenty-six names 
 drawn were to constitute the petit jury for that term. The jury 
 or juries required, having been drawn, the box was again to be 
 sealed and delivered to the clerk of the circuit court. 
 
 The affidavit of Samuel E. Douglas, register of the city of 
 Washington, was offered with the motion to sustain its allega- 
 tions. This affidavit was supplemented by the oral examination 
 of Mr. Douglas, under oath. The affidavit and oral examination
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 239 
 
 developed the facts that no such lists had been made out and pre- 
 served as required ; also that there had been no joint action of 
 these three officers in the selection of names, but that each one 
 had written his respective number of names and deposited them 
 in the box, without exhibiting them to the other two. There had 
 been no joint selection as the law required. 
 
 Still further, the fact was developed that these offices had not 
 sealed the box as required, but had delivered it to the clerk of the 
 circuit court to be sealed by him. It was further shown that the 
 names had been drawn, not by the clerk of the circuit court, but 
 by the clerk of the city of Georgetown. 
 
 It will be seen at a glance that the affidavit and oral examina- 
 tion of Mr. Douglass fully sustained the allegations of the motion 
 of the District Attorney, and that the utter disregard of all the 
 most essential requirements of the law could have easily been 
 made to subserve a corrupt purpose. Without charging fraud in 
 the case, we can easily see how the clerk of the city of George- 
 town, who drew this jury, and who had no right to put his hand 
 in the box, could have carried in his own hand names of his own 
 selection for that special purpose, and from this store to have drawn 
 a jury without taking a single name from the box. 
 
 The substance of the affidavit and oral examination of Mr, 
 Douglass having been incorporated with the motion of the Dis- 
 trict Attorney, the defense made the following replication : 
 
 UNITED STATES \ 
 
 vs. > In the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia, No. . 
 
 JOHN H. SURRATT. J 
 
 And thereupon, the defendant saith the said motion is bad in law and in substance. 
 The facts stated do not constitute any ground in law for a challenge of the array. 
 
 BRADLEY & MERRICK./OT- defense. 
 
 Mr. Pierreponl. We join in the demurrer. 
 
 The question now before the court was simply one of law and 
 of fact, and whether the facts in the case, admitted by all, consti- 
 tuted such a violation of the law as justified and required the set- 
 ting aside of the array. It would seem that it ought to have been 
 easily settled, and the fact the motion was hotly contested by the 
 defense through a discussion of three days continuance, would
 
 240 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 seem to indicate that for some reason they had a special desire to 
 have their case tried by that particular jury. The argument was 
 opened by Mr. Merrick for the defense. His argument was first 
 addressed to the construction of the statute, and to the contention 
 that the facts alleged and admitted did not constitute such a viola- 
 tion of the law as would justify the setting aside of the array. 
 And then as there was no statute in regard to the quashing of the 
 panel the question was argued on the principles of the common 
 law, and many decisions were invoked, both in England and in this 
 country, to show that the failure of the officers to comply with the 
 law was not such as would vitiate what they did. 
 
 The question was ably discussed on both sides, and ingeniously 
 on the part of the defense, which did not confine itself to the 
 legal discussion of the question, but made it the occasion for mani- 
 festing its spirit and attitude toward the government by insinua- 
 tions and innuendo. Thus, Mr. Merrick said, " I hope the United 
 States is looking for the attainment of justice in this case ; I trust 
 nothing may be developed in this case looking towards anything 
 else. I trust the government will tread the high and honorable 
 path which leads to the attainment of simple and, I may add, 
 speedy justice. And entertaining this hope, I suggest to your 
 honor, whether it is probable a jury, against whose qualification 
 nothing is alleged, who were summoned without regard to this 
 case, and before it was anticipated it might be tried, are not better 
 fitted to do justice then another summoned in anticipation of the 
 case, a case not of an ordinary private nature, but one of great 
 public interest, in which, while the United States as a government, 
 I trust, will tread in the highways I have spoken of, there are indi- 
 viduals occupying offices in the government who may be disposed 
 to tread lower paths which we will have to follow. 
 
 " May it please your honor, I shall say no more upon this motion 
 than to add that after the most careful examination I have been 
 able to give to it, the honest conclusion to which I have come is, 
 that the ground, probably, upon which the motion rests, is to be 
 found in the act of 1853, page 160, 10 Statutes at Large, which 
 act provides that where a criminal case is on trial in this court and 
 a jury has been impanelled, and another term begins during the
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 24! 
 
 progress of the trial, the cause shall continue ; but leaves it exceed- 
 ingly questionable whether unless the jury is fully impanelled 
 before the end of the term, the cause can be tried. That other 
 term begins Monday next, and unless a jury in this case is im- 
 panelled before Saturday night it is questionable whether this case 
 will be tried for many days or many years." 
 
 To this sly insinuation that the government felt that it had an 
 elephant on its hands, and that the motion was a dilatory one thus 
 made so early in the case to influence both the jury and public 
 opinion, Judge Pierrepont replied as follows: "They will discover 
 before we proceed much further, that the United States are as 
 zealous, as earnest, and as eager to try this cause as the other 
 side, and they will discover before it is through that the public 
 mind will be set right with regard to a great many subjects about 
 which there have been active, numerous, and unfounded reports. 
 Since I have been here in this city for these past few days, it has 
 been circulated in nearly all the journals of this country that the 
 United States dared not bring forward the diary found upon the 
 murderer of the President, because that diary would prove things 
 they did not want to have known. All these things will be proved 
 to be false, and all the papers, about the suppression of which so 
 much has been said, will be exhibited here on the trial of this case. 
 We are anxious that it should be proceeded with at once. It has 
 likewise been circulated through all the puhflic journals that after 
 the former convictions, when an effort was made to go to the 
 President for pardon, men active here at the seat of government 
 prevented any attempt being made, or the President even being 
 reached for the purpose of seeing whether he would not exercise 
 clemency ; whereas, the truth, and the truth of record, which will 
 be presented in this court, is that all this matter was brought 
 before the President and presented to a full cabinet meeting, 
 where it was thoroughly discussed ; and after such discussion, 
 condemnation, and execution, received not only the sanction of 
 the President, but that of every member of his cabinet. This, and 
 a thousand other of these false stories, will be all set at rest for- 
 ever in the progress of this trial ; and the gentlemen may feel 
 assured that not only are we ready but that we are desirous of
 
 242 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 proceeding at once with the case." The insinuation of Mr. Mer- 
 rick, having been thus bravely and fully met, the defense felt it 
 necessary to shift its ground, and so Mr. Bradley, in the course of 
 his argument, found another reason for the motion of the prosecu- 
 tion to quash the panel, which he artfully put forth in the form of 
 an insinuation as follows : " I think I can see where this thing is 
 drifting. It is not delay that is sought, but they have another motive 
 more powerful than delay. It is to get another jury in the place of 
 this honest jury already summoned. Why, sir, the gentleman talks 
 about the misgivings in the public prints. I do not know that he 
 has seen what I hold in my hand, an article from this place 
 denouncing this jury because sixteen of them are Catholics, as 
 they say, but there it is such an article has been written and 
 published in the New York Herald. I know, too, that the same 
 article, published yesterday morning, foreshadows the fact that 
 these gentlemen were to come into court on the day they did, and 
 make the identical motion that they have submitted here." 
 
 Mr. Merrick. "And states the ground of the motion?" 
 
 Mr. Bradley. "Yes Sir, states the ground of the motion. It 
 looks to me as though it came from very near home." 
 
 Mr. Pierrepont. "What does it state as the ground of the 
 motion? " 
 
 Mr. Bradley. "There it is, just the same ground precisely as 
 was stated here that it was not a lawful panel." 
 
 Mr. Pierrepont. "Oh!" (laughingly.) 
 
 Thus we get a glimpse at the outside pressure that was brought 
 to bear on this trial by a constant fusilade of falsehoods couched in 
 cunningly-devised paragraphs that they might gain a general circu- 
 lation through the press of the country for the purpose not only of 
 influencing the jury in this case, but also of misleading and pervert- 
 ing public opinion. 
 
 The fact brought out in this paragraph is somewhat remarkable. 
 It might have been a mere chance that sixteen out of the twenty- 
 six drawn for the jury happened to be Catholics, but we cannot 
 help feeling a suspicion that had the law been a little more closely 
 followed it might have been otherwise. 
 
 To the insinuation of Mr. Bradley, the District Attorney replied
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 243 
 
 as follows : "I do not rise for the purpose of arguing the motion 
 before the court, but with the permission of your honor, and my 
 learned friend, simply to say a word or two in regard to a certain 
 statement in one of the newspapers of the day to which my atten- 
 tion has just been called. It is an item in the New York Herald, 
 purporting to be telegraphed from this city. 
 
 The article is not very complimentary to myself, but as my friend 
 is spoken of in very high terms, I am not disposed to quarrel with 
 the writer, for, as a generous-hearted man, I am more anxious for 
 the reputation of my friend than I am for my own. What is inti- 
 mated in it, I would not think of sufficient importance to be called 
 to the attention of the court, were it not that allusion has been 
 made to it here by the learned counsel who last addressed your 
 honor. 
 
 He stated that there was some reason not made known for this 
 motion which we have submitted. I deem it due to myself to 
 say 
 
 Mr. Bradley. "I beg your pardon if I have said anything 
 wrong. I thought it was a fair retort on what was said by Judge 
 Pierrepont." 
 
 The District Attorney. "Notwithstanding the disclaimer of the 
 gentleman to impute any wrong motive to us in submitting the 
 motion now before your honor, I think, inasmuch as public refer- 
 ence has been made to it here, it is due to my position before the 
 country to say a word. I will here say, then, that there is no one 
 who would more earnestly and sincerely deprecate any appeal to 
 religious prejudices than myself. Politicians may speak, think, and 
 act as they please, but for my part I would drive from the halls of 
 justice the demon of party spirit and religious fanaticism. I trust 
 in God the day will never come when a judge, or a jury, will be 
 influenced in the discharge of the most solemn duty that can 
 possibly be devolved upon human beings by political or religious 
 considerations." 
 
 At the assembling of the court on the morning of the I3th, 
 Judge Fisher delivered an exhaustive opinion on the motion before 
 him. As it is somewhat lengthy I shall only give its concluding 
 paragraph. "Believing, therefore, that the substantial require-
 
 244 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 ments of the act of Congress in this case providing for the 
 selection of a fair and impartial jury, have not been complied with, 
 but entirely set at naught, and that there has been grave default on 
 the part of the officers whom that act has substituted in the place of 
 the marshal, for the purpose of having them exercise a united 
 judgment in the selection of all the persons whose names are to go 
 in the jury box, I am constrained to allow the motion of challenge 
 in this case. I do not consider the fact that the present panel 
 were improperly drawn by the clerk of Georgetown, who had no 
 right to put his hand into the box, because the objection which I 
 have allowed lies even deeper than that. It is, therefore, ordered 
 by the Court that the present panel be set aside, and that the 
 Marshal of the District of Columbia do now proceed to summon a 
 jury of talesmen." 
 
 Judge Fisher subsequently said : " My order is that the Marshal 
 summon twenty-six talesmen." The process of securing a jury 
 from talesmen occupied the next four days, and about two hundred 
 talesmen were summoned before a panel could be secured. 
 
 Many of those summoned by the marshal were excused on 
 showing sufficient grounds ; a very large number were found 
 disqualified on their voire dire; and perhaps all of the challenges, 
 or nearly so, to which the parties were entitled, were exhausted, 
 and it was not until the evening session of the i6th of June, that 
 the jury was impaneled to try the case. 
 
 When a panel of twenty-six jurors had been secured, counsel 
 for the prisoner, through Mr. Merrick, said : " If your honor please, 
 we are now ready to proceed to empanel the jury. Before doing 
 so, however, we think it our duty, in behalf of the prisoner, to 
 file our challenge to the present array. Your honor has virtu- 
 ally decided the question, and we do not desire to take up any 
 time in its argument. We simply wish that it may be filed so that 
 it can be passed upon." 
 
 The challenge in word and form is as follows :
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 245 
 
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES vs. JOHN H. SURRATT. 
 In the Criminal Court, March Term, 1867. 
 
 And the said Marshal of the District of Columbia, in obedience to the order of the 
 Court, made in this case on the I2th of June instant, this day makes return that he 
 hath summoned, and now hath in court here twenty-six jurors, talesman, as a panel 
 from which to form a jury to try the said cause, and the names of the twenty-six jurors 
 so returned being called by the clerk of said court, and they having answered to their 
 names as they were called, the said John H. Surratt, by his attorneys, doth challenge 
 the array of the said panel, because he saith it doth plainly appear by the records and 
 proceedings of the Court in this cause that no jurors have ever been summoned accord- 
 ing to law to serve during the present term of this Court, and no names of jurors, duly 
 and lawfully summoned, have been placed in the box provided for in the fourth section 
 of the act of Congress, entitled, "An Act providing for the Selection of Jurors to serve 
 in the Several Courts of the District," approved i6th of June, 1862, on or before the 
 ist day of February, 1867, to serve for the ensuing year, wherefore he prays judgment 
 that the panel now returned by the said Marshal, and now in court here, be quashed. 
 
 MERRICK, BRADLEY & BRADLEY, 
 
 Attorneys for Surratt. 
 
 This motion was made as a foundation for carrying the case up 
 on a writ of error in the event of the conviction of the prisoner. 
 
 On Monday, the i8th of June, the case was opened by Mr. 
 Nathaniel Wilson, Assistant District Attorney, as follows : " May it 
 please your honor and gentlemen of the jury, you are doubtless 
 aware that it is customary in criminal cases for the prosecution at 
 the beginning of a trial to inform the jury of the nature of the 
 offense to be inquired into, and of the proof that will be offered in 
 support of the charges of the indictment. By making such a state- 
 ment I hope to aid you in clearly ascertaining the work that is 
 before us, and in apprehending the relevancy and significance of 
 the testimony that will be produced as the case proceeds. 
 
 " The grand jury of the District of Columbia have indicted the 
 prisoner at the bar, John H. Surratt, as one of the murderers of 
 Abraham Lincoln. It has become your duty to judge whether he 
 be guilty or innocent of that charge, a duty than which one 
 more solemn or momentous never was committed to human intel- 
 ligence. You are to turn back the leaves of history to that red 
 page on which is recorded in letters of blood the awful incidents of 
 that April night on which the assassin's work was done on the body
 
 246 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 of the Chief Magistrate of the American republic, a night on 
 which for the first time in our existence as a nation, a blow was 
 struck with the fell purpose not only of destroying human life, but 
 the life of the nation, the life of liberty itself. Though more than 
 two years have passed by since then, you scarcely need witnesses 
 to describe to you the scene in Ford's Theatre as it was visible in 
 the last hour of the President's conscious life. It has been present 
 to your thoughts a thousand times since then. A vast audience 
 were assembled, whose hearts were throbbing with a new joy, born 
 of victory and peace, and above them the object of their gratitude 
 and reverence, he who had borne the nation's burdens through 
 many and disastrous years, sat tranquil and at rest at last, a 
 victor indeed, but a victor in whose generous heart triumph 
 awakened no emotions save those of kindliness, of forgiveness, and 
 of charity. To him, in that hour of supreme tranquility, to him in 
 the charmed circle of friendship and affection, there came the form 
 of sudden and terrible death. 
 
 " Persons who were then present will tell you that at about twenty 
 minutes past ten o'clock that night, the night of the I4th of April, 
 1865, John Wilkes Booth, armed with pistol and knife, passed 
 rapidly from the front door of the theatre, ascended to the dress 
 circle, and entered the President's box. By the discharge of a 
 pistol he inflicted a death wound, then leaped upon the stage, and 
 passing rapidly across it, disappeared into the darkness of the 
 night. 
 
 " We shall prove to your entire satisfaction, by competent and 
 credible witnesses, that at that time the prisoner at the bar was 
 then present, aiding and abetting that murder; and that at ten 
 minutes past ten o'clock that night he was in front of that theatre 
 in company with Booth. You shall hear what he then said and 
 did. You shall know that his cool and calculating malice was the 
 director of the bullet that pierced the brain of the President and the 
 knife that fell upon the venerable Secretary of State. You shall 
 know that the prisoner at the bar was the contriver of that villainy, 
 and that from the presence of the prisoner, Booth, drunk with 
 theatric passion and traitorous hate, rushed directly to the execu- 
 tion of their mutual will. We shall further prove to you that
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 247 
 
 their companionship upon that occasion was not an accidental 
 or unexpected one, but that the butchery that ensued was the 
 ripe result of a long premeditated plot, in which the prisoner 
 was the chief conspirator. It will be proved to you that he is 
 a traitor to the government that protected him ; a spy in the 
 employ of the enemies of his country in the years 1864 and 1865 ; 
 passed repeatedly from Richmond to Washington, from Wash- 
 ington to Canada, weaving the web of his nefarious scheme, plot- 
 ting the overthrow of this government, the defeat of its armies, 
 and the slaughter of his countrymen ; and as showing the venom 
 of his intent, as showing a mind insensible to every moral obli- 
 gation and fatally bent on mischief, we shall prove his gleeful 
 boasts that during these journeys he had shot down in cold 
 blood, weak and unarmed Union soldiers, fleeing from rebel prisons. 
 It will be proved to you that he made his home in this city the 
 rendezvous for the tools and agents in what he called his " bloody 
 work," and that his hand deposited at Surrattsville, in a con- 
 venient place, the very weapons obtained by Booth while escap- 
 ing, one of which fell or was wrenched from Booth's death grip, 
 at the moment of his capture. 
 
 "While in Montreal, Canada, where he had gone from Richmond, 
 on the roth of April, on the Monday before the assassination, 
 Surratt received a summons from his co-conspirator, Booth, requir- 
 ing his immediate presence in this city. In obedience to that pre- 
 concerted signal, he at once left Canada, and arrived here on the 
 1 4th. By numerous, I had almost said a multitude, of witnesses, 
 we shall make the proof to be as clear as the noonday sun, and as 
 convincing as the axioms of truth, that he was here during the 
 day of that fatal Friday, as well as present at the theatre at night, 
 as I have before stated. We shall show him to you on Pennsyl- 
 vania Avenue, booted and spurred, awaiting the arrival of the fatal 
 moment. 
 
 "We shall show him in conference with Herold in the evening; 
 we shall show him purchasing a contrivance for disguise an hour 
 or two before the murder. 
 
 " When the last blew had been struck, when he had done his 
 utmost to bring anarchy and desolation upon his native land, he
 
 248 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 turned his back upon the abomination he had wrought, he turned 
 his back upon his home and kindred, and commenced his shud- 
 dering flight. 
 
 "We shall trace that flight, because in law flight is the criminal's 
 inarticulate confession, and because it happened in this case as it 
 always happens, and always must happen, that in some moment 
 of fear or of elation, or of fancied security, he, too, to others, 
 confessed his guilty deeds. He fled to Canada. We will prove 
 to you the hour of his arrival there and the route he took. He 
 there found safe concealment, and remained there several months, 
 voluntarily absenting himself from his mother. In the following 
 September he took his flight. Still in disguise, with painted face, 
 and painted hair, and painted hand, he took ship to cross the At- 
 lantic. In mid-ocean he revealed himself and related his exploits, 
 and spoke freely of his connection with Booth in the conspiracy 
 relating to the President. He rejoiced in the death of the Presi- 
 dent, he lifted his impious hand to heaven and expressed the wish 
 that he might live to return to America and serve Andrew Johnson 
 as Abraham Lincoln had been served. He was hidden for a time 
 in England, and found there [sympathy and hospitality ; but soon 
 was made again an outcast and a wanderer by his guilty secret. 
 From England he went to Rome, and hid himself in the ranks of 
 the Papal army in the guise of a private soldier. Having placed 
 almost the diameter of the globe between himself and the dead 
 body of his victim, he might well fancy that pursuit was baffled, 
 but by the happening of one of those events which we sometimes 
 call accidents, but which are indeed the mysterious means by which 
 Omnicient and Omnipotent justice reveals and punishes the doers 
 of evil, he was discovered by an acquaintance of his boyhood. 
 When denial would not avail he admitted his identity, and avowed 
 his guilt in these memorable words : 'I have done the Yankees as 
 much harm as I could. We have killed Lincoln, the nigger's 
 friend.' 
 
 "The man to whom Surratt made this statement, did as it was his 
 high duty to do he made known his discovery to the American 
 minister. There is no treaty of extradition with the Papal States; 
 but so heinous is the crime with which Surratt is charged, such
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 249 
 
 bad notoriety had his name obtained, that his Holiness the Pope 
 and Cardinal Antonelli ordered his arrest without waiting for a 
 formal demand from the American government. Having him 
 arrested, he escaped from his guards by a leap down a precipice 
 a leap impossible to any but one to whom conscience made life 
 valueless. He made his way to Naples, and then took passage in 
 a steamer that carried him across the Mediterranean Sea to Alex- 
 andria, in Egypt. He was pursued, not by the ' blood hounds of 
 the law,' that seem to haunt the imagination of the prisoner's 
 counsel [this refers to a remark made by Mr. Merrick when dis- 
 cussing the motion to quash the panel] , but by the very elements, 
 by destruction itself, made a slave in the service of justice. The 
 inexorable lightning thrilled along the wires that stretch through 
 the waste of waters that roll between the shores of Italy and the 
 shores of Egypt, and spake in his ear its word of terrible command ; 
 and from Alexandria, aghast and manacled, he was made to turn 
 his face towards the land he had polluted by the curse of murder. 
 He is here at last to be tried for his crime. 
 
 And when the facts which I have stated have been proved, as proved 
 they assuredly will be, if anything is ever proved by hnman testi- 
 mony, and when all the subterfuges of the defense have been 
 disproved, as disproved they assuredly will be, we, having done our 
 duty in furnishing you with that proof of the prisoner's guilt, in 
 the name of the civilization he has dishonored, in the name of the 
 country he has betrayed and disgraced, in the name of the law 
 he has violated and defied, shall demand of you that retribution, 
 though tardily, shall yet surely be done, upon the shedder of 
 innocent and precious blood." 
 
 Before the hearing of evidence was entered upon, the prisoner 
 presented the following petition to the Court: 
 
 " To the Honorable, the Justices of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, hold- 
 ing the Criminal Court in Alarch Term, i86j. 
 
 "The petition of John H. Surratt shows that he has been put upon his trial in a 
 capital case in this court; that he has exhausted all his means, and such further means 
 as have been furnished him by the liberality of his friends, in preparing for his defense, 
 and he is now unable to procure the attendance of his witnesses. He therefore prays 
 your honor for an order that process may issue to summon his witnesses, and to compel 
 their attendance at the cost of the government of the United States, according to the 
 statute in such cases made and provided."
 
 250 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 This petition was signed, sworn to in open court, and attested by 
 the clerk according to law, and was granted by the court. 
 
 The government introduced eighty-five witnesses in chief to 
 sustain the various counts in the indictment, and ninety-six in re- 
 buttal. The defense introduced ninety-eight witnesses to overthrow 
 the testimony of the witnesses in chief on the part of the govern- 
 ment, and twenty-three in surrebuttal, making in all three hundred 
 and two witnesses that were examined during the trial. The 
 examination of these witnesses occupied the period of thirty-nine 
 days. The hearing of the evidence commenced on the I /th of 
 June, and was concluded on the 26th of July. The arguments in 
 the case were concluded on the /th of August, and on that day 
 Judge Fisher delivered his charge to the jury and gave them the 
 case. On Saturday, the loth day of August, just two months from 
 the commencement of the trial, the jury reported that they stood 
 about equally divided in favor of conviction and acquittal, and 
 that there was no prospect of their being able to agree. 
 
 The Court inquired whether anything was to be said why the 
 jury should not now be discharged. Mr. Bradley said: "The pris- 
 oner gave no consent to any discharge of the jury. If they were 
 to be discharged he wants it understood that it was against his will 
 and protest." 
 
 The District Attorney, on behalf of the government, left the 
 whole matter with the Court. 
 
 The Court remarked that this was the third communication of a 
 similar tenor he had received from the jury. If he thought there 
 was any possibility of their coming to an agreement as to the guilt 
 or innocence of the prisoner, he would have no objections to keep- 
 ing them out longer, but supposing from the statement made by 
 them, no such result could be expected, he directed the jury now 
 to be discharged. The prisoner was then remanded to the custody 
 of the Marshal. 
 
 A second indictment was found against him for the murder of 
 Abraham Lincoln, and the District Attorney entered a nolle pro- 
 sequi on this. Thus the prisoner was set at large. 
 
 The result of this trial by a civil court made it clear that no 
 verdict could be expected from any jury that could be obtained
 
 INDICTMENT AND TRIAL. 2$ I 
 
 under the law, and so the case was not further prosecuted. 
 It does not come within the scope of the author's plan to 
 review in detail this great mass of evidence. Neither is it neces- 
 sary. It is sufficient for him to say that the charges contained in 
 the indictment were fully proven by the testimony in chief of the 
 witnesses for the government, and that this testimony was not im- 
 paired in any essential point by the efforts of the counsel for the 
 defense in their cross-examination of these witnesses, nor yet by 
 the testimony offered by the defense. It will be found upon a 
 careful and candid scrutiny to fully sustain the statements herein- 
 before given as to the conduct of Surratt in his relations to the 
 transaction. No one can carefully read the masterly summing up 
 of the evidence, and the fair and honest interpretation of it by 
 Judge Pierrepont in his concluding argument, without being 
 thoroughly convinced that Surratt was a prominent and active 
 member of the conspiracy, and that he took an active hand 
 through a period of more than three months in preparing for 
 the execution of its purposes, as also in its final accomplish- 
 ment. The evidence was shown to prove conclusively the fact 
 that from the time of his introduction to Booth, on the 23d of 
 December, 1864, to the time of the assassination, their associa- 
 tions were of the most intimate and confidential character; that 
 they were much together, and co-operated in bringing together 
 in Washington City the other members of the conspiracy, on 
 whom they relied for important parts in the final act. It was 
 shown that the house of Mrs. Surratt, the mother of the pris- 
 oner, was the place of rendezvous for Booth, Atzerodt, and 
 Payne, and that her house at Surrattsville, occupied by her ten- 
 ant, Lloyd, was made the place of deposit for arms to be used by 
 Booth and Herold in their flight after the murder; that these 
 were placed there by Surratt, and that his mother also had knowl- 
 edge, not only of this fact, but of the purpose for which they had 
 been provided, and of the time they would be called for, and was 
 used by the conspirators to convey to her tenant, Lloyd, the noti- 
 fication to have them ready, as they would be called for that 
 night. 1 
 
 1 As Judge Pierrepont is now dead, I deem it best to cut out a certain statement, 
 which I had from him, with his consent to publish it. AUTHOR.
 
 252 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 It was here, on this civil trial, that " the scales of justice fell," 
 and not, as alleged by the prisoner's counsel, at the trial before 
 the Military Commission. 
 
 The District Attorney and his able assistant, Judge Pierrepont, 
 had both expressed their confidence in the ability of the civil 
 courts to compass the ends of justice ; but the result of this trial 
 showed that in a crime committed to further political party 
 interests, no jury could be expected to find a verdict; and so the 
 government refused to prosecute the case any further. The 
 prisoner was set at large. 
 
 At the conclusion of the trial, on Aug. loth, 1867, Surratt was 
 remanded to prison, and on May I2th, 1868, he asked to be 
 released on bail, but was refused. On June 22d, 1868, he was 
 released from custody. On the 22d of September, 1868, a nolle 
 prosequi was entered. 
 
 Another indictment was found against him for engaging in 
 rebellion. Upon this he was ordered to be admitted to bail in a 
 bond of $20,000. He first pleaded not guilty, and then asked to 
 withdraw this plea, and to file a special plea, which was granted. 
 The government demurred to the plea on Sept. 22d, 1869. 
 The demurrer was overruled, and he was finally discharged.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 A CRITICISM OF THE DEFENSE. 
 
 IT now remains for the writer to review the course of the defense 
 in this trial, and to point out its policy, its spirit, its perversion of 
 facts, and disregard of evidence in carrying out its purpose to 
 appeal, first, to the prejudice of the jury, and then to pervert pub- 
 lic opinion. 
 
 The prisoner was defended by counsel of known and acknowl- 
 edged ability men of reputation for their knowledge of law, and 
 ability as advocates at the bar. But despite all this, their defense 
 of Surratt was as unique in its character as was the case itself. 
 Made by men learned in the law, it ignored the requirements of 
 law, and so was managed by them more in the light of its political 
 relations, than that of its legal requirements. In proof of this 
 assertion I shall quote freely from the arguments of counsel, and I 
 think I shall be able to show that I am fully justified in expressing 
 this opinion. I shall first refer to the remarkable number of 
 exceptions taken by the counsel for the defense to the rulings of 
 the Court on questions of evidence, and the use made of them. 
 I will quote first from the argument of Mr. Merrick. 
 
 " In a prosecution such as this, conducted against one of its 
 citizens by a government, what should be the course of that gov- 
 ernment, and what is due to the jury and to the prisoner? 
 Whatever there is that can throw light upon the alleged crime should 
 be let into the jury box. All evidence that could go before the 
 human mind calculated to impress it with conviction, or modify 
 its opinions, should be allowed to come before you. What has 
 been the case with regard to this trial? Wherever any technical 
 rule of law could by any constraint whatever exclude a piece of 
 testimony calculated to enlighten your judgment, it has been in- 
 
 253
 
 254 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 voked to exclude that testimony ; has been bent from its uniform 
 application and its generally understood principle for that purpose. 
 I shall find no fault with his honor on the bench in his rulings, 
 
 o " 
 
 for this is not my place to express an opinion about a decision of 
 the Court. 
 
 A member of the bar should be loyal to the tribunal before 
 which he practices, to the full extent of gentlemanly and pro- 
 fessional courtesy, and in the court-room bow with pleasant 
 acquiescence in whatever the judge may say. With that acquies- 
 cence I bow, and yet there is nothing and I must say this, and say it 
 injustice to myself there is nothing that has fallen from his honor 
 in the adjudiciation upon these questions of testimony that has 
 changed my opinion that the testimony should be allowed to go to 
 the jury. One hundred and fifty exceptions taken by the defend- 
 ant's counsel encumber this record. It is certainly strange that 
 there should have been so wide a difference, and I regret it. 
 Without complaining, as I said, of the decisions of the Court, it can 
 only be accounted for from the fact that the attorneys representing 
 the government in this case have strained every principle of law, 
 and invoked in their behalf every discretionary power of the court, 
 as against the prisoner." 
 
 Notwithstanding his semblance of disclaimer, Mr. Merrick here 
 makes an appeal to the jury, on the implied charge of partiality on 
 the part of this Court. In giving his charge to the jury Judge 
 Fisher very properly takes notice of this charge, and effectually 
 rebukes the arrogance of the counsel in the following language: 
 "Much stress has been laid by the counsel for the defense 
 upon the fact, which they assert, that during the progress of this 
 trial more than one hundred and fifty exceptions have been taken 
 to the rulings of the court concerning the admissibility of evidence. 
 If they have found themselves under the necessity of calculating 
 the number of these exceptions, and parading them before you, 
 with a view of having you render a verdict according to irrelevant 
 evidence not before you, rather than according to the legal evidence 
 which you have heard, I have no disposition to criticise their 
 taste, but leave them to present their case in their own way. At 
 the same time I feel it my duty to remark to you that if counsel
 
 A CRITICISM OF THE DEFENSE. 
 
 255 
 
 will be so bold as to present propositions to the Court which every 
 tyro in the profession ought to know are untenable, it does not 
 necessarily follow that the judge must always be so weak as to 
 sustain them. It has heretofore been supposed that exceptions to 
 the rulings of a judge at nisi prins were intended to be passed in 
 review before the appellate tribunal. I have never before known 
 them to be neatly calculated and presented to the jury by way of 
 argument." 
 
 A jury is sworn to decide according to the law and evidence in 
 the case. But how are jurors to decide according to the law, not 
 being acquainted with law? It is manifest they cannot take their 
 instructions on the law from the counsel employed in the case, as 
 they will naturally differ widely in their constructions of law. It 
 is made, therefore, the duty of the court, an impartial tribunal, 
 skilled in law, to instruct the jury on all the points of law involved 
 in the case. In this remarkable case the counsel for the defense, 
 feeling that the court could not sustain the interpretations of the 
 law on several important points which they had ' endeavored to 
 impress on the jury in their arguments, took the remarkable posi- 
 tion that the jury was to be its own judge of questions of law. 
 Mr. Merrick, in the course of his argument, took this position, 
 and argued it at some length, as follows: "The jury is specially 
 charged, it is true, with the fact; but they are also charged 
 with the law. You are to instruct them by your learning, your 
 wisdom, and by your authority. You are to advise them ; but 
 they must know and they must believe. My learned brother on 
 the other side (Mr. Carrington) seemed to feel that it was neces- 
 sary to press you, gentlemen, very hard upon your obligation to 
 follow the instructions of the Court. I have never heard him say 
 that before. Other cases have been tried before this, but I have 
 never heard him talk so earnestly to the jury about being obliged 
 to follow the instructions of the Court. Why is he so solicitous in 
 this case? Does he think you won't dare to do right? He told 
 you, gentlemen of the jury, that you were sworn to try this case 
 according to the law and the fact, and that you must take the law 
 from the court; and if you departed from the law so given you, 
 you would be perjured. I tell you it is no such thing. If you
 
 256 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 find a verdict of guilty, and do not believe the party to be guilty 
 in every particular, in your judgment and in your hearts, then 
 you are perjured men, I care not what the Court's instruction is. 
 
 " Has my learned friend read the oath? I don't think he has. 
 Mr. Clerk, will you be kind enough to read it." (The clerk then 
 read the oath.) 
 
 Mr. Merrick resuming, said: "Where is the law? Why did 
 you tell the jury what you did? The language is, 'And a true 
 verdict give according to the evidence.' My learned brother has 
 had that oath ringing in his ears for six years. Why didn't he 
 tell you what it was? You are, gentlemen, to find a verdict 
 according to the evidence. What sort of verdict are you to find ? 
 Guilty, or not guilty. That is all you can say. You cannot say 
 ' Guilty,' under the Court's instruction, or ' Not guilty,' under the 
 Court's instruction. If you say ' Guilty,' you say ' Guilty as in- 
 dicted,' upon your conscience resting the weight of the guilt. If 
 your verdict should be ' Guilty,' it will be followed by blood, for you 
 see there is no mercy anywhere in those that represent the govern- 
 ment. If your verdict is guilty, then, indeed, you look upon a 
 dying man. Upon your consciences will rest the responsibility of 
 that verdict. 
 
 "And let me say to you, gentlemen of the jury, that on that awful 
 day when you shall stand before the last tribunal to be judged, and 
 the All-Seeing Eye shall look into your hearts and ask you why 
 you found this verdict of guilty, think you He will harken if you 
 say, ' The judge's instructions made me do it.' He will say to you, ' 
 ' Were you not free agents, with minds and intellects, sworn as a 
 jury in a free country? Were you not told by the counsel for the 
 prisoner at the bar that it was your duty to find this verdict 
 according to your judgments, your consciences, and didn't you 
 disregard him? ' 
 
 " If Judge Fisher's instructions made you find it, bring Judge 
 Fisher. Where is the Judge ? Think you he will step forward and 
 say, ' I will take the burden.' No, gentlemen. Let me say to 
 you now, that by the laws of the land, and by the laws of God, the 
 responsibility is on the judge to instruct you rightly, to guide 
 you correctly, to give you wise and judicious counsel, not as
 
 A CRITICISM OF THE DEFENSE. 257 
 
 mandatory and binding on your conscience, but as advisory to 
 your judgment, to enlighten the pathway you are to tread in your 
 investigations. We shall ask no instructions, and desire none. The 
 law of murder is too plain to need any, and you, gentlemen, are 
 too intelligent not to understand it. Indeed, if we desire some 
 explanation, we would prefer to give it to you in the way of argu- 
 ment, rather than trust it to the distinguished judge who presides. 
 We would trust it to argument, because, with regard to these plain 
 questions, all men can comprehend what the law is. We would 
 prefer trusting it to the weight of our own character with the jury 
 as men and lawyers." After this ingenious appeal to the jury, the 
 learned advocate then proceeded to recount and expound the pro- 
 positions of law on which the District Attorney had invoked the 
 instructions of the Court. 
 
 Judge Fisher in charging the jury made the following reference 
 to this remarkable argument by Mr. Merrick : " You have been 
 told, gentlemen, by the counsel for the defense, in a manner not 
 very respectful, certainly by no means complimentary to the Court, 
 that you are the judges of the law as well as the facts in criminal 
 cases, and that you have the right to disregard the instructions of 
 the Court in matters of law; and they tell you that their exposi- 
 tions of the law, and the weight of character they possess, may be 
 more safely relied upon than the instructions which may be given 
 you by the Court. The weight of character of a prisoner's coun- 
 sel would be a variable, and not unfrequently a very unsafe cri- 
 terion by which the jury should judge as to the law of his case. 
 Perhaps they would have you regard the court as sitting on the 
 bench merely to discharge the duty of preserving order and deco- 
 rum in the court room, which probably the crier of the court or 
 baliff might be disposed to regard as an usurpation of his preroga- 
 tive. If the jury are entirely to disregard the judge's instructions 
 as to the law of a case, I confess I can see but little left than that 
 for him to perform. 
 
 " It is true, gentlemen, that you have the power, and in cases 
 where your consciences are satisfied that the instructions of the 
 Court are dictated, not by an honest desire to enlighten the jury 
 as to the true state of the law, but by corrupt and wicked motives, 
 you have the right to disregard the instructions purposely intended
 
 258 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 to mislead you. But to claim that the jury are better judges of 
 what the law may be than the Court, is about as reasonable as to 
 assert that a plain farmer or merchant may be taken fresh from his 
 plough or his counter, and be more capable of navigating and 
 manoeuvering a steam frigate, or to lead your armies to certain 
 victories, than your admiral or commander-in-chief. In my 
 opinion, you have just the same right to disregard the evidence 
 of the witnesses who stood before you unimpeached in any matter 
 respecting the facts involved in the cause, as you have to disregard 
 what the Court may say to you, under an official oath, as to the 
 law that may apply to the facts. A jury have the power, if 
 they choose to exercise it, after having assumed the obligations of 
 an oath, to say that they will neither believe the judge nor the 
 witnesses, but decide upon the law and facts according to their 
 own caprice, or the confidence which they may repose in the 
 character of counsel on either side, but such is not the purpose 
 for which juries were instituted, and they have no right so to act. 
 When the witnesses in the cause have testified before you as 
 to the facts, it is then the office of the judge, under his official 
 oath, to testify to you in the spirit of truth, according to the best 
 of his knowledge and ability, as to what is the law which may 
 be applicable to those facts; and an honest jury will disregard 
 neither the testimony of the witnesses nor the instructions of the 
 judge, unless they are satisfied that corrupt motives have actuated 
 them. They will leave the party where the law leaves him, to his 
 legitimate redress, a writ of error to the appellate court." 
 
 Referring to the course of counsel in this illegitimate appeal to 
 the jury in their argument on this point, and to their appeal, based 
 on the number of their exceptions to the rulings of the Court, the 
 judge made this further remark in vindicating the position and 
 dignity of the Court : "In reference to these matters I may 
 observe that, perhaps, I owed it to the dignity of the bench to 
 have interrupted counsel in the conduct of the case in this par- 
 ticular, but in a cause involving the life of the prisoner upon the 
 one hand and the vindication of the outraged justice of a nation 
 in mourning upon the other, I deemed it my duty to cast not an 
 atom in the one scale or in the other which might by any possi- 
 bility tend to prejudice either side of the issue."
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE BY THE COUNSEL 
 FOR THE DEFENSE AND THEIR ANIMUS TOWARD THE 
 GOVERNMENT AND APPEALS TO THE POLITICAL PREJUDICES 
 OF JURORS. 
 
 THE conduct of this trial on the part of the defense toward the 
 witnesses for the prosecution was most remarkable. The law 
 prescribes the methods by which testimony is to be discredited, 
 and the eminent lawyers who defended the prisoner were of course 
 well acquainted with the legal methods of impeaching testimony. 
 That they did not confine themselves to these was not only 
 unprofessional, but was calculated to create a suspicion that they 
 had an intuitive perception of the fact that the methods known 
 to the law would not avail them in this case. Hence from the 
 first they attempted to influence the jury by treating the govern- 
 ment witnesses with supercillious contempt, and even scorn. 
 
 They did not, however, stop here, but whenever they could find 
 or make an occasion they would throw out insinuations against 
 the witnesses en masse by side remarks intended for the ears of the 
 jury. 
 
 They spoke of the witnesses who were kept together in a room, 
 to be called as they were needed, as being in the " penitentiary," 
 and added to this that "they would soon be in another penitentiary." 
 
 On the examination of Dr. McMillen, the surgeon of the ocean 
 steamer "Peruvian," in whose charge Father La Pierre had placed 
 Surratt under the name of McCarthy, and to whom Surratt had 
 made confessions during his voyage across the Atlantic that were 
 conclusive of his guilt, the counsel for Surratt made themselves so 
 offensive that the witness was provoked to a retort in self-defense. 
 
 This witness was intolerable to them because of the directness
 
 26O ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 and force of his testimony. In self-defense the Doctor was pro- 
 voked into making the following remark: He said he would 
 tell the counsel (Mr Merrick), and if he was not deaf, he could 
 hear, and repeated his answer, adding that Mr. Merrick had 
 insulted witness the other day, and that it was the act of a coward 
 and a sneak. The Court here cautioned the witness that such 
 language was not becoming, but also remarked "that it was not 
 becoming in counsel to try to worry witness into bad temper." 
 
 Witness stated "that Mr. Merrick had remarked the other day 
 that all the witnesses in the adjoining room ought to go to the 
 penitentiary, or something to that effect; that he was just as good 
 as Merrick." 
 
 On the following day, at the opening of the court, Mr. Bradley 
 said : " If your honor please, before we proceed with the trial of 
 this case, I beg leave to call the attention of the Court to an 
 incident which occurred just before the adjournment yesterday, and 
 to ask that the notes of the reporter may be read. Your honor 
 was very much occupied at the time, and I desire that the record 
 may be read in order that you may see what passed, and what led 
 to the attack made by the witness upon the stand upon the counsel 
 with whom I am associated, your honor, without having heard 
 what passed at that time, if not in precise words yet in substance, 
 censured the counsel to whom these observations were addressed. 
 I think, in looking at it, your honor will see that there was no 
 provocation given ; and that if there was, it is due to the dignity 
 of this court, and to the protection of the members of the bar, to 
 which they are entitled at the hands of the Court, that some notice 
 should be taken of what then passed." After the reading of so 
 much of the report as related to the matter, the Court spoke as 
 follows : " I did not hear what was said by the witness in regard to 
 the gunboats, for the reason that I was at the time occupied in 
 preparing some passes for a friend. When my attention was 
 called to the remark made use of by the witness towards the 
 counsel, I was under the impression that he had been provoked to 
 it by something that had been said by the counsel. I cannot, how- 
 ever, perceive in the record which has been read anything which 
 ought to have called forth, or which justifies, the expression of the
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 261 
 
 witness. I will say now to the witness, that although Mr. Merrick 
 did say a few days ago, in regard to the witnesses who were in the 
 adjoining room (which Mr. Bradley had called a penitentiary) 
 that they (the witnesses) would soon be in another penitentiary, 
 or words to that effect, it is not the privilege of a witness to take 
 exception in the way he did to any remarks made in the court 
 room. He may appeal to the Court to protect him if he is 
 aggrieved." [Turning to witness] " You must not, hereafter, -in your 
 examination, make use of any expressions to counsel which are at 
 all insulting in their character, however much you may feel yourself 
 aggrieved by remarks which they may have made in reference to 
 witnesses generally, or in reference' to yourself before your 
 examination. 
 
 " In this connection it may not be improper to observe that I 
 have never, in all my judicial experience, seen a case in which 
 there has been so much trouble with regard to the examination of 
 witnesses and so much bitterness of feeling displayed. 
 
 " It may be all right, but I confess I see no reason why it should 
 be so. I cannot, of course, enter into the feelings of counsel, and 
 it is possible they may feel themselves aggrieved, and therefore 
 regard themselves as justified in exhibiting this spirit. I will say, 
 further, that I have never seen witnesses cross-examined with so 
 much asperity as I have in the case now pending. It does not 
 appear to me, therefore, as at all strange that witnesses should be 
 worried into such remarks as this witness has uttered, especially 
 when intimations are publicly thrown out by counsel as to their 
 fitness for the penitentiary, and that, too, when some of the most 
 respectable persons in the land, such, for instance, as General 
 Grant and Assistant Secretary Seward, are among the number. 
 And not even was the effect of the remark allowed to stop with 
 the intimation, but when attention was called to it by the District 
 Attorney, in the hope, I presume, that it would be recalled, it was 
 repeated, and with the additional observation that the propriety of 
 the remark could be shown. When such things occur it is not at 
 all surprising that witnesses should come here prepared to avenge 
 themselves by making insulting replies to the counsel. I deeply 
 deplore it, and will endeavor, by most carefully observing all that
 
 262 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 transpires, to prevent a similar recurrence on the part of either 
 counsel or witnesses ; but however watchful the Court may be, such 
 things will occasionally break forth at times and under circum- 
 stances when, from not expecting it, it is impossible for the Court 
 to check them." [Again addressing himself to the witness.] " Dr. 
 McMillen, you are highly reprehensible for having made such 
 remarks as that to which exception has been taken. It was 
 altogether out of place. If you felt yourself aggrieved by any 
 remark, you should have called on the Court for protection. You 
 will now proceed to give your evidence, and in a manner respect- 
 ful to the counsel. If the counsel on either side shall treat you 
 with what you conceive to be disrespect, you will appeal to the 
 Court, and the Court will intervene for your protection. I would, 
 however, suggest to gentlemen on both sides that in the exam- 
 ination of witnesses, if they will consult Quintilion and Allison in 
 regard to their duty in this respect (and no doubt they have read 
 the remarks of both these authors on the subject), they will find 
 that those writers say nothing is to by gained by a bitterness of 
 manner toward witnesses either on examination in chief or cross- 
 examination, but that everything may possibly be gained by kind- 
 ness and conciliatory manners ; and I think it would be a decided 
 improvement in this case if their suggestions were accepted. In 
 the course of the five years that I was engaged in prosecuting 
 criminal cases, I do not recollect ever to have had an unkind 
 word with a witness on the one side or the other, and never in 
 a civil case except on one occasion, when a witness of my own 
 turned against me. Then I was led away by a natural quickness 
 of temper. I advise that we should all, to the best of our ability, 
 endeavor to control our tempers in conducting this case ; and then 
 there will be no fear of a repetition of the unpleasant occurrences 
 that have happened during its progress." 
 
 To this Mr. Merrick replied : " I feel it incumbent upon me to 
 say, after what has fallen from the Court, especially as your honor 
 seems to have the impression that I intended my remarks to 
 apply to all the witnesses, including Secretary Seward and General 
 Grant, that while your honor misunderstood me in this regard, 
 I do not believe I was misunderstood by some others outside, in
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 263 
 
 supposing I intended to embrace all the witnesses in that remark. 
 I will here say that I have the greatest respect for General Grant 
 and Mr. Seward, and I apprehend that among the witnesses in the 
 case it is perfectly well understood to whom I referred and to whom 
 I did not refer. I apprehend that no sane man can suppose that I 
 meant any such reference to General Grant, Mr. Seward, or Mrs. 
 Seward, and that class of witnesses. I will only say, in conclu- 
 sion, that I think, without any further explanation, or more direct 
 pointing of the remark at present, it is perfectly well understood 
 among the witnesses to whom the remark referred." 
 
 To this the Court replied : " I do not know whether it is under- 
 stood or not. I cannot understand it, because I am bound not to 
 know the witnesses, either as regards their own private character, 
 or the character of their testimony, and I enter into the trial of 
 this case knowing nothing, as it were, about either, scarcely ever 
 having glanced at the testimony, and of course, therefore, I cannot 
 enter into the feelings of counsel on the subject. I do not know 
 to what witnesses these remarks may be directed, but this I do 
 know, that there are certain legal methods pointed out in the text 
 books of the law by which we are to be guided in undertaking to 
 discredit the testimony of witnesses. One method is the discredit- 
 ing of the witness by himself ; by his own contradictions, and by his 
 mode and manner of testifying. Another is by proving the wit- 
 ness to be utterly devoid of reputation for truth and veracity, and 
 not to be believed on his oath. Another is by contradicting him 
 by the conflicting testimony of other witnesses. These are the legal 
 modes that are pointed out in the law books, and any side remarks 
 that are made by way of prejudicing a jury, any acting in the 
 case, the casting of sinister looks at the jury, are departures from 
 the rules laid down. 
 
 " The examination of a witness ought to be conducted by the wit- 
 ness standing up and the counsel standing up, and looking each other 
 in the face, without the counsel directing his remarks to the jury 
 by turning towards them instead of turning towards the witness. 
 That is the proper way to conduct either an examination in chief 
 or a cross-examination. " 
 
 The fact that the Court deemed it necessary to deliver such a
 
 264 A SSA SSINA TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 lecture as this to counsel, who were men of age and experience in 
 their profession, and who from their reading ought to have been as 
 well informed as the Court on the proper treatment of a witness and 
 the legal methods of discrediting testimony, indicates that he had 
 found in their conduct such flagrant departures from the require- 
 ments of law and professional conduct a necessity for such criticism 
 and such admonitions. The opinion of the Court as thus expressed 
 fully justifies me in the charges I have made against the conduct 
 of the defense and their unprofessional efforts to discredit testimony. 
 I am still futher justified in it by the remark of Mr. Merrick that they 
 (the counsel for the defense) " had laid at the feet of the attorneys 
 a mass of the most corrupt battalion that was ever summoned to 
 support a cause in a criminal court. " 
 
 Here Mr. Merrick attempts to set aside all of the testimony that 
 had been offered by the goverment proving the guilt of the prisoner, 
 by denouncing it as corrupt throughout, and unworthy of the slightest 
 consideration. This would certainly be as easy a method as it would 
 be novel to throw out testimony en masse upon the mere ipse dixit of 
 counsel, and in consequence of the legal standing and weight of 
 character claimed by them with such manifest self complacency, 
 but when we consider the fact that upon a candid and careful 
 scrutiny of all the testimony in the case, it could be set aside in 
 no other way, we could not perhaps reasonably expect them to re- 
 frain from trying to get the benefit of all the method that was left 
 them. 
 
 The most important witnesses introduced by the government and 
 those who most unequivocally proved the existence of a conspiracy 
 and the connection of the prisoner with it, as also his participancy 
 in its accomplishment, and also the fact that his mother belonged 
 to it and performed a part in preparing for its accomplishment, had 
 stood every test that ingenuity could devise to discredit their testi- 
 mony. Some of them had been kept on the stand under cross ex- 
 amination for nearly two days, and could not be made to discredit 
 their own testimony, either by contradictions or mode of answering. 
 Neither had they been discredited by proving that they were utterly 
 devoid of character for truth and veracity, and not to be believed on 
 oath. The attempts at their contradiction by the conflicting testimony
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 265 
 
 of other witnessess had all proven miserable failures, and so the 
 counsel for the defense attempted to have their client declared inno- 
 cent by scouting all of the evidence in the case and offering their 
 own convictions of his entire innocence, and referring the jury 
 to their weight of character and legal standing to enforce their 
 opinions on the jury as grounds for a favorable verdict for their 
 client. Never did able lawyers deal more unfairly with witnesses 
 nor with evidence, nor more wantonly set at naught the established 
 rules of evidence, not only in the respects referred to, but also 
 in the efforts that they made to introduce testimony which they 
 must have known to be inadmissible under the rules of evidence, 
 as already shown in the number of exceptions which they not only 
 took to the rulings of the court, but kept count of and paraded 
 before the jury. Their animus toward the government was also 
 shown in this matter of testimony, as also in other ways to be 
 hereafter noticed. They charged the government with presenting 
 testimony on this trial that it knew to be false, and withholding 
 testimony from the military commission that would have proven the 
 innocence of Mrs. Surratt. To sustain the first charge, they asserted 
 in regard to the handkerchief found by Blinn at the Burlington 
 depot, that it had been dropped by a government detective, and not 
 lost by Surratt. Blinn, however, was positive in his testimony that 
 he found the handkerchief on the morning of the 1 8th, but the hand- 
 kerchief which Hallohan, the detective, claimed to have lost, was 
 lost at Burlington on the morning of the 2Oth of April. He did not 
 discover its loss, however, until he got to Essex Junction, and did not 
 know where he had lost it. The handkerchief found by Blinn on 
 the morning of the i8th, and put in evidence by the government, 
 could not therefore have been the handkerchief that Hallohan 
 claimed to have lost. There was also too heavy a cloud of un- 
 certainty hanging over his (Hallohan's) testimony after his cross- 
 examination, to have warranted the counsel in making so serious 
 a charge against the government as that it knew that Hallohan, and 
 not Surratt, lost the handkerchief. 
 
 In further proof of the charge that they disregarded and set at 
 naught the rules of evidence, they tried to get in a statement by 
 John Matthews of the contents of an article put into his hands by
 
 266 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Booth on the afternoon of the I4th of April, with a request that if 
 he (Booth) did not see him before 10 o'clock on the following 
 morning he should hand it to the National Intelligencer for publi- 
 cation, and which Matthews, after the assassination, had burned, 
 thinking it would put him in danger to have such a thing found in 
 his possession. They proposed to prove by this witness that neither 
 the prisoner nor his mother were in the conspiracy. Of course 
 they knew that they could not prove the contents of a paper that 
 would have been inadmissible even if it had been presented. But 
 if they had had the paper in their possession they could not 
 have proven anything by it, as it was represented to be a paper 
 prepared by Booth to justify himself in the crime he had in con- 
 templation, and would have been no more admissible as evidence 
 than the diary which Booth kept during his flight, every entry in 
 it having been made in view of his probable failure to make his 
 escape, and with the intention of palliating his crime. It was of 
 no more value as evidence than was his assertion of the entire in- 
 nocence of his companion, Herold, just a few minutes before he was 
 shot. Yet they censured the government for not putting this diary 
 in evidence before the Commission, asserting that its reason for with- 
 holding it was that it would have proven the innocence of Mrs. 
 Surratt, thus by implication asserting that the government was 
 thirsting for her blood, and was determined that she must be con- 
 victed right or wrong. 
 
 This position was boldly taken by them in their arguments, as we 
 shall hereafter see, in the face not only of the evidence on which 
 she was declared guilty by the Commission, but also in the face of that 
 presented on this trial, which much more clearly and fully established 
 her guilt. I have thus been careful to show from the record that 
 I am justified in the strictures I am making on the course of the 
 defense. I would be sorry to do any injustice to these men if they 
 were here to answer for themselves, much more so now that the 
 two senior members, Mr. Bradley and Mr.Merrick, are numbered with 
 the dead. My charitable conclusion in their behalf is that their 
 political opposition to the government so prejudiced their minds 
 that they could not bring themselves into a judicial frame for the 
 trial of this case. Their religious sympathies with Mrs. Surratt, 

 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 267 
 
 and their ready acceptance of the assertion of Father Walter that 
 she was " as innocent as the newborn babe," so influenced their 
 minds that they would reject as false any testimony whatever that 
 went to establish her guilt. Their sympathies then would naturally 
 lead them to conduct the defense of her son in the same spirit of 
 determination to hold him innocent in spite of all adverse testimony. 
 The prisoner found his counsel in a state of mind to readily ac- 
 cept the ingenuous fabrication which he had had two years to get 
 into form, as also no doubt the able assistance of the Reverend 
 Fathers who so sedulously watched for his return to Canada after the 
 murder of the President, and who at once took him under their 
 protection on his return to Montreal, and kept him secreted for five 
 months, until they could get him landed in the Pope's dominions ; 
 and then when he was brought back and put upon his trial, stood 
 by him from day to day with unfaltering fidelity, until he was set at 
 liberty. 
 
 The story which Surratt gives in his Rockville, Md., lecture, which 
 bears throughout the marks of the " fine Italian hand " of the Jesuit, 
 and which is contradicted in all of its most important points by the 
 whole run of the testimony in the two trials, had no doubt been 
 accepted by his counsel as true, and hence they would hear no 
 testimony that conflicted with it ; but were ready to accept any 
 evidence whatever, without regard to the character of the witnesses, 
 that corroborated it. This, in the opinion of the author, is the most 
 charitable construction that can be put upon their conduct in the 
 management of their case. Their eyes were blinded by their all 
 controlling prejudices, and bitter opposition to the course of the 
 government in sending Surratt's co-conspirators before a military 
 commission for trial. We shall now proceed to give the evidence 
 of their feelings toward the government in this matter. They could 
 apparently find no words bitter enough to express their abhorrence 
 of the trial by a commission. 
 
 As John H. Surratt and his mother were bound up in the same 
 bundle by all the testimony in the case, and his mother had been 
 found guilty upon this testimony by the court before which she 
 was tried, his counsel seemed to feel the necessity of getting rid of 
 the effect of this fact, in its bearing on their case. That I may
 
 268 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 not be accused of doing them injustice in presenting their mode of 
 doing this, I will let them speak for themselves. 
 
 In the examination of jurors on their voire dire, Mr. Pierrepont 
 asked the question : " Have you formed any opinion in regard to 
 the guilt or innocence of the other conspirators ? " The question 
 was objected to by the counsel for the defense, and Mr. Merrick, 
 to sustain his objection, said, among other things : " I presume 
 there is scarcely a gentleman in the United States who has not 
 formed and expressed the opinion that Booth shot Lincoln. I 
 apprehend there are very few who have not formed and expressed 
 an opinion that the mother of the prisoner at the bar suffered 
 death without competent testimony to convict her, and so we 
 might go through in an inquiry in relation to all the others. " In 
 replying, Mr. Pierrepont said: "The reason urged by my learned 
 friend against it is, that he believes, I do not know but that he 
 asserts, that there are very few in the United States who do not 
 believe that Mrs. Surratt was illegally executed. Therefore we 
 could not get a jury competent to try the prisoner at the bar if 
 this question is allowed to be put." 
 
 Mr. Merrick [interrupting]. " My brother will allow me to say 
 that he did not state my entire proposition. I said there were few 
 intelligent persons in the United States who had not formed an 
 opinion upon the question of Booth's participation in the killing of 
 Lincoln ; and there were also, I presumed, but few persons who had 
 not formed an opinion that Mrs. Surratt had been executed upon 
 insufficient evidence. " 
 
 Mr. Pierrepont. " Precisely; that is the very statement, except 
 that my friend has made it a little stronger than I did. 
 
 " I did not intend to overstate it, as there is nothing gained by 
 overstatement, but it seems I did not come up to the mark." . . . 
 
 In his opening for the defense, Mr. Joseph H. Bradley, Jr., said: 
 "We have at last arrived at that stage of this case when an oppor- 
 tunity is afforded the prisoner for saying something by way of 
 defense, not only of his own character, his own reputation, his life 
 and his honor, but also as it shall rise incidentally in this discussion 
 of this evidence before you, something in the way of vindicating 
 the pure fame of his departed mother. " Again. " As to Mrs.
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 269 
 
 Surratt we hope to satisfy you that a grave error has been made 
 in her case. " Again Mr. Merrick, in his argument on the motion 
 to strike out certain testimony, said: '"The counsel had said, if it 
 was anything favorable, the defense would insist on it ; if anything 
 unfavorable, they would not desire it. All he had to say in reply 
 was, that he would insist on the free confession of all who had 
 testified in the case, if he could get it. He would like to have had 
 the privilege of putting in whatever this poor boy's butchered 
 mother said, but had not. When he offered what she said, counsel 
 on the other side said, ' No, you cannot prove that. We can 
 prove what she said that will benefit the state, but you shall not 
 throw the mantle of a mother's declarations over the child standing 
 in the prisoner's dock.' Had we been allowed, we would have 
 proved her declarations proved them when tottering from the 
 dungeon to the scaffold, with the world behind her, and nothing in 
 the front but that God before whom she was shortly to appear, and 
 before whom she solemnly asseverated that she was innocent 
 of the crime for which she was being killed. " 
 
 To all these charges and assumptions the District Attorney, in his 
 argument upon the evidence, replied as follows : " Well, I do most 
 kindly but most respectfully and emphatically repudiate the unjust 
 imputation that Mary E. Surratt has been murdered, as was alleged 
 by one of the counsel, and butchered as alleged by another. 
 Where is the evidence to justify it? If they have a right to make 
 this accusation, have we not a right to reply to it? For what pur- 
 pose was it introduced before this jury? Is it to appeal to your 
 prejudices? I make no such accusation against the gentlemen; 
 they charge it home upon us when they say a murdered and a 
 butchered woman. I deny it, and I undertake to prove to the 
 contrary. " 
 
 Mr. Bradley, interrupting, said " he supposed this threw the whole 
 subject open for discussion." The District Attorney rejoined : 
 " It had been introduced by the learned gentlemen on the other 
 side. " Mr. Bradley replied " that he was not aware what evi- 
 dence there was on which this question could be discussed. But 
 if it was understood that the whole subject was open, and that the 
 counsel for the prisoner could not be interrupted in their discussion 
 of it, he was satisfied."
 
 270 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 The District Attorney. " Then why make allusion to it in the 
 first instance? Who cast the first stone in the presence of this 
 jury? 
 
 " I regret that it should have been necessary for an American 
 woman to be executed by the judgment of an American tribunal. 
 That verdict has been rendered by an American tribunal, and the 
 consequence of it was the execution of an American woman. I 
 know the character of the American people. I know that imagin- 
 ation revolts at the execution of one of the tender sex. But when 
 the daughter of Herodias murdered John the Baptist, she deserved 
 death. When Lucretia Borgia darkened the history of her country 
 by her horrid crimes, she deserved death. And when Mary E. 
 Surratt murdered Abraham Lincoln, the great moral hero of the 
 age in which he lived, the patriot and philanthropist of the nine- 
 teenth century, she deserved death. There is no man who has a 
 heart more capable of love for woman than myself. But when she 
 unsexes herself, when she conceives, when she encourages, when 
 she urges on, and is instrumental in committing the crime of mur- 
 der, she places herself beyond the pale of protection. The best 
 wife who ever lived, according to Milton, our great mother Eve, is 
 thus represented as speaking to her husband: 
 
 " ' What thou biddest, 
 Unargued I obey; so God ordains: 
 God is thy law, thou mine.' 
 
 " I believe in submission on the part of women ; submission to 
 her God, to the laws of her country and to her husband. But 
 when a woman opens her house to murderers and conspirators, 
 infuses the poison of her own malice into their hearts, and urges 
 them to the crime of murder and treason, I say boldly, as an 
 American officer, public safety, public duty, requires that an 
 example be made of her conduct. Murder ! gentlemen of the 
 jury. Who composed that military commission? They are no 
 better men than you are, but you will not be offended with me 
 if I say they are as good men as you are, or I, or any of us." 
 Naming over the officers who constituted the tribunal by which 
 Mrs. Surratt was tried, he continued : " I say, gentlemen of the
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 271 
 
 jury, that they are good men, holding commissions under the 
 government of the United States, and they are presumed to be 
 honorable men. The law declares that every private citizen, and 
 every public officer who is a servant of the American people, is 
 presumed to be honorable until the contrary is proved. 
 
 " Your officers, your men, your representatives in the American 
 army, in an accusation which will travel upon the telegraph wires 
 perhaps to the four quarters of the world have been denounced, if 
 not expressly, by implication, as murderers and butchers who took 
 the life of an innocent woman. If so, when you come to try them^ 
 and you believe it, say it, but it is not the question submitted ta 
 you now. She may be innocent and the prisoner at the bar be 
 guilty ; the subject was introduced collaterally by the learned 
 counsel, for what purpose I know not, except for effect. Before 
 you brand these gentlemen with the character of murderers, see 
 that you have relevant grounds to act upon. Take care, or you- 
 may be placed in the same situation ; I have not charged it, and 
 I do not think my friends would, upon reflection, charge men who 
 are placed in such a solemn obligation with such a dereliction of 
 duty. It has been said that this has been pronounced by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States an illegal tribunal. What 
 has that to do with the action of these officers? What has that 
 to do with your action ? What pertinency can it have to the issue 
 now submitted to you for your decision? But, gentlemen of the 
 jury, let us first consider the character of this crime, and then I 
 will consider briefly the connection of Mrs. Surratt with it. I do- 
 not desire to say much about her; she has gone to her grave,, 
 and her spirit has passed before her Eternal Judge." 
 
 After recounting the character of the crime, the District At- 
 torney thus refers to Mrs. Surratt's connection with it : " Now, 
 gentlemen of the jury, let us view the connection of Mrs. Mary 
 E.' Surratt with this assassination. I feel the delicacy of the 
 ground upon which I stand. I know the situation. I know that 
 you dislike to consider this question, which has been forced upon 
 you. I do not want to do it. My duty is to prosecute the pris- 
 oner, but one of the counsel has said she was murdered, and 
 another that she was butchered, and it therefore becomes my
 
 2/2 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 duty to trace her connection with this crime, and then leave it to 
 you to say whether she was guilty (though not relevant to this 
 case) of the crime for which she suffered. First, I call your 
 attention to a fact to which we have already adverted ; that her 
 house, 541, was the rendezvous for these conspirators. Now, 
 gentlemen, will you pause for a moment, and let me ask you how 
 you can reconcile it with innocence? You remember the law, 
 that it is not how much a party did, but whether she had anything 
 to do with it. Can you, I say, reconcile it with innocence that 
 this woman's house should have been the rendezvous of John 
 Wilkes Booth, Lewis Payne, Atzerodt, Herold, and John H. Sur- 
 ratt? Would you not know by intuition? Would you not know 
 by their conversation? Would not your judgment and your hearts 
 tell you who they were and what they contemplated? 
 
 That is the great central truth, which I defy the learned counsel 
 'for the defense successfully to assail. Secondly, who furnished 
 the arms with which the bloody deed was done? . . . The 
 woman who puts an arm into the hand of her lover, her son, her 
 brother, or her husband, who urges him on to the deed, by the 
 law of God and of man is equally guilty with the one who with his 
 own hand perpetrates the crime. According to the testimony of 
 John M. Lloyd this is shown. Do you believe him or disbelieve 
 him? My friend, Mr. Bradley, who opened this case said he was 
 a common drunkard ; but mark you, he was an attendant and 
 friend of Mrs. Surratt." 
 
 Mr. Bradley. "Who says so? " 
 
 The District Attorney. " I will prove it. When I was examin- 
 ing that witness, and proposed to ask him certain questions in 
 reference to Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, he said, ' Mr. Carrington,' for 
 he knew me personally, ' I don't wish to speak about Mrs. Sur- 
 ratt, for she is not on trial.' I said ' Go on, Mr. Lloyd.' He 
 declined. I applied to the Court, and the Court said that it was 
 his duty to answer. He saw her continually. He lived in her 
 house ; he drank her liquor. Why, this evidence shows that John 
 H. Surratt, Herold, and John M. Lloyd played cards and drank 
 together. . . . But says the friend and companion of the 
 prisoner at the bar, the confiding and confidential agent of his
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 273 
 
 mother, unwilling to testify against her when put on the solemn 
 sanction of an oath, but when required to do so he speaks out, 
 he says certain arms were furnished him by the prisoner at the 
 bar; that he concealed them, the prisoner showing him where 
 they could be safely concealed, he protesting at the time against 
 it, protesting that it might get him into some personal difficulty. 
 The mother knew of the transaction, for on the nth of April we 
 have Lloyd's own testimony ; she asked him where those shooting- 
 irons were, and said they might soon be needed, or words to that 
 effect. But I am going too fast, for I do not desire . to speak to 
 confuse you. I say, first, that her house is the rendezvous ; and 
 that, secondly, she furnishes arms, or knows of their being 
 furnished. On the night of the I4th of April, Booth and Herold 
 returned, and are leaving the city of Washington in flight for their 
 lives. At Surrattsville they called for whiskey from the agent and 
 friend of the prisoner and his mother. She gives them a home, 
 gives them arms, gives them whiskey, not to nerve them but to 
 refresh them after the commission of their horrid crime. 
 
 "But Booth, in making his escape, needs something more than 
 whiskey and arms. 
 
 "It is necessary that he should secrete himself as he traveled 
 through the country, and that he should see persons approaching 
 him from an immense distance, he needs a field-glass, and has it 
 delivered to him by his friend and agent, Mrs. Surratt. " With the 
 defense no witness told the truth whose testimony went to convict 
 their client, whilst the stories of the most infamous men, self-con- 
 fessed scoundrels and accomplices after the fact, if not before, such 
 as Father Boucher, and Reverend Cameron, must be taken as 
 gospel truth. 1 In the face of all this testimony the counsel for 
 the defense again bring their false accusations against the govern- 
 ment. Mr. Merrick in the course of his argument, said : " Does 
 the Attorney General feel that public justice demands that he 
 should employ assistant counsel in this case, or is there somebody 
 else behind?" . . . " Are there any other officers of the federal 
 government that have purposes to accomplish in this case? Says 
 
 1 See testimony of Father Boucher, Trial of Surratt, p. 895, and onward. Also 
 testimony of Rev. Stephen F. Cameron, p. 793 and onward. Trial of Surratt.
 
 274 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 the learned attorney on the other side (Mr. Pierrepont) in a 
 speech delivered I think before you were impaneled : 
 
 "'It has likewise been circulated through all the public journals 
 that after the former convictions, when an effort was made to go to 
 the President for pardon, men, active here at the seat of govern- 
 ment, prevented any attempt being made, or the President even 
 being reached for the purpose of seeing whether he would not 
 exercise clemency; whereas the truth, and the truth of record, 
 which will be presented in this court is, that all this matter was 
 brought before the President, and presented to a full cabinet meet- 
 ing, where it was thoroughly discussed, and, after such discussion, 
 condemnation, and execution received not only the sanction of the 
 President, but that of every member of his cabinet. This and a 
 thousand others of these false stories will be all set at rest forever 
 in the progress of this trail; and the gentlemen may feel assured 
 that not only are we ready, but that we are desirous of proceeding 
 at once with the case.' Now if this declaration of my learned 
 brother on the other side is correct, this trial was not entered 
 upon for the purpose alone of inquiring into the guilt or innocence 
 of the prisoner at the bar. It -was not entered upon because 
 public justice demanded his arraignment, before you, gentlemen, 
 but in order that a thousand false stories about men high in office 
 might be settled at his expense. 
 
 " Then, although my learned brother is here under appointment 
 by the Attorney General of the United States, yet it is an appoint- 
 ment which probably had its origin in the stimulus of some private 
 feeling lying behind. He comes here, not to try this case alone, 
 but he comes here to set at rest certain false stories. Has he 
 done it?" . . . "Where is your record? Why didn't you bring 
 it in ? Did you find at the end of the record a recommendation to 
 mercy in the case of Mrs. Surratt that the President never saw? 
 You had the record here in court. " 
 
 Mr. Bradley. "And offered it once and withdrew it." 
 
 Mr. Merrick. "Yes, sir, offered it and then withdrew it. Did 
 you find anything at the close of it that you did not like ? Why 
 didn't you put that record in evidence, and let us have it here? 
 We were not going to quarrel about it ; we would like to know all
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 275 
 
 we can about the dark secrets of those chambers whose doors are 
 closed, but from which light enough creeps to make us anxious 
 to look within. We only know enough to make us curious ; but 
 that is enough to make us feel. You were going to show, too, 
 that nobody prevented access to the President on the part of those 
 who waited to get a pardon. Why didn't you do it? Gentlemen 
 of the jury, I should have been glad to have heard that proof. 
 They have brought these charges into the case and I must meet 
 them as part of the case. I should have been glad to have heard 
 that proof. Who of you who was in the city of Washington, 
 will ever forget that fatal day when the tolling of the bells reminded 
 you of the sad fact that the hour had come when those people 
 were to be hung? Your honor (referring to Justice Wylie, 
 who was at the time sitting beside Judge Fisher on the bench), 
 in your praise be it said, raised your judicial hand to prevent 
 that murder, but it was too weak. The storm beat against your 
 arm, and it fell powerless in the tempest. You remember that 
 day, gentlemen. Twenty-four hours for preparation. The echoes 
 of the announcement of impending death, scarcely dying away 
 before the tramp of the approaching guard was heard leading to 
 the gallows. Priest, friend, philanthrophist, and clergyman went 
 to the Executive Mansion to get access to the President, to implore 
 for that poor woman three days respite to prepare her soul to meet 
 her God, but got no access. The heart-broken child the poor 
 daughter went there crazed, and, stretched upon the steps that 
 lead to the Executive chamber, she raised her hands in agony 
 and prayed to every one that came, ' O God ! let me have access, 
 that I may ask for but one day for my poor mother just one 
 day.' Did she get there? No. And yet, says the counsel, 
 there was no one to prevent access being had. Why don't you 
 prove it? O, God! if such a thing could have been proved, how 
 would I not have rejoiced in that fact ; for when reflecting upon 
 that sad, unfortunate, wretched hour in the history of my country 
 an hour when I feel she was so much degraded, I could weep 
 until the paper be worn away with the continual dropping of my 
 tears. Who stood between her and the seat of mercy? Has 
 conscience lashed the chief of the Bureau of Military Justice?
 
 2/6 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 [Gen. Joseph Holt.] Does memory haunt the Secretary of 
 War? Or is it true that one who stood between her and Executive 
 clemency now sleeps in the dark waters of the Hudson, while 
 another died by his own violent hand in Kansas? 
 
 "The learned gentleman is right. He did come here to put 
 these things at rest, or to endeavor to put them at rest ; but he could 
 not do it. What else is there in this case to show a feeling behind, 
 besides public justice impelling to conviction? Gentlemen of the 
 jury, as the counsel has stated in his speech, public rumors had 
 gone abroad, and certain grave charges had been made. You 
 know that political accusations had been brought against Judge 
 Holt, Mr. Bingham, and the Secretary of War, in the House of 
 Representatives, and that it had become a political matter." (Mr. 
 Merrick here referred to an effort that had been made by rebel 
 sympathizers in Congress to make political capital out of this 
 transaction.) "There were parts of those accusations that the 
 learned counsel was going to put at rest. Where is the proof? 
 The proof is in this ; follow me for a moment. 
 
 " I said I would show there was a conspiracy on conspiracy. 
 What has the chief of the Bureau of Military Justice got to do with 
 this case? Does not your honor hold an independent court? Is 
 not the judicial tribunal of the land separate from the executive? 
 Is it not a fundamental principle of American constitutional law that 
 the executive and judicial departments shall be distinct and separate ? 
 The Bureau of Military Justice is a part of the executive depart- 
 ment. What has he to do with this case? Nothing, says the 
 counsel. Is he counsel? we ask. No, say they. Why, then, is he 
 manipulating their witnesses in this case ? Smoot, one of their wit- 
 nesses, tells you that he is called up before Judge Holt, with ten 
 others, examined, and his examination was taken down in writing. 
 The day after giving his testimony he comes back and says that 
 it was not Judge Holt that examined him, but was somebody else. 
 
 " I pressed him, pressed him hard, as to the place and time. He 
 then recollected it was in the Winder Building, opposite the War 
 Department ; and when I pressed him still further, he had to say that 
 the office he was in had written over the door ' Judge Advocate 
 General's office. ' Again I ask what had the Judge Advocate
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 277 
 
 General to do with this case? Not only was Smoot there, but 
 Norton was there, and God only knows how many more. It is 
 apparent, then, that he has taken a deep interest in this case. Why 
 is he taking such an interest? It is certainly indiscreet. He has 
 lost his prudence and he has lost his discretion ; he has lost his judg- 
 ment thus to expose himself and his office in a criminal prosecution. 
 
 " Mr. District Attorney, gird on your loins and answer me. 
 Whose discretion is broken down? Whose prudence is betrayed? 
 Is there anybody else's heart at which the vulture gnaws ? Is there 
 any high and great man who is forgetting the dignity of his office 
 and the duties of a moral creature so far as to descend to the prepara- 
 tion of witnesses with which he has nothing to do to satiate his hunger 
 with the blood of an innocent being? . . . But I am now speak- 
 ing of the Bureau of Military Justice. He you know has furnished 
 the evidence in this case." 
 
 Mr. Merrick then went on to charge the government with pre- 
 paring and presenting evidence against Surratt that it knew to be 
 false, and then proceeded as follows : " No matter whether they 
 knew the truth in this case or not, prudence has been betrayed ; 
 discretion has been broken down ; courage has been conquered. 
 Following on Judge Pierrepont's declaration, which I have read to 
 you, and these circumstances, comes Mr. Carrington, breaking the 
 cerements of the tomb, and demanding your verdict against Mrs. 
 Surratt. In God's name isn't it enough to try the living? Will 
 you play the gnome, and bring her from the cold, cold earth and 
 hang her corpse? Bring her in ; but there is no occasion for doing 
 so ; she is here already. We have felt our blood run cold as the 
 rustling of the garments from the grave swept by us. Her spirit 
 moves about, and the Judge Advocate General and all these men 
 may understand that it is the eternal law of God, though, so far as 
 men are concerned, fresh and innocent blood may apparently vin- 
 dicate innocent blood previously shed, yet the spirit will still walk 
 beside them. 
 
 " He may shudder before her, because she is with him by day 
 and by night ; and he may say 
 
 " ' Avaunt and quit my sight ! Let the earth hide thee; 
 Thy bones are marrowless; thy blood is cold.'
 
 2/8 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 But the cold blood and marrowless bones are still beside him, 
 and her whisperings are presaging that great judgment day when 
 all men shall stand equal before the throne of God, and when Mrs. 
 Surratt is called to testify against Joseph Holt, what will he in vin- 
 dication say? . . . 
 
 " Mr. Carrington, your honor, has gone outside of this record, and 
 I must follow him to some extent, at least. He has gone outside 
 of it in speaking of the military commission, defending the major 
 generals and others. I am glad I recurred to it, for it reminds me 
 of a statement of his that I desire to correct. He says we accused 
 those honorable men of murder. No, sir ; I refrain from any ex- 
 pression of opinion on that subject. It is true the most exalted 
 judicial tribunal in the world, vindicating the liberty of American 
 citizens and their constitutional rights against military authority, 
 and maintaining the supremacy of the courts over military law, have 
 pronounced that, and all other commissions similarly constituted, to 
 be illegal ; but what I denounce here is not the men who in judg- 
 ment sat there, but the men conducting the trial, and who with this 
 diary of Booth in their hands could have proved Mrs. Surratt's 
 innocence by showing this conspiracy to have been organized on 
 the 1 4th day of April, but who, though producing the toothpick 
 and the penknife found on Booth, yet never so much as disclosed 
 the fact that such a diary existed. 
 
 " They never made it known to those men or to the country. 
 Do they not deserve to be denounced ? Now that it has become 
 known to the country, they come in before this jury to get them, 
 with the diary in evidence before them, to find the same verdict 
 that the military commission found. 
 
 " I put a question to a witness on that stand (referring to Father 
 Walter) and asked him, ' Did you administer the consolations of 
 religion to Mrs. Surratt?' 'I did. I gave her communion on 
 Friday, and prepared her for death. ' I asked him, ' Did she tell 
 you as she was marching to the scaffold that she was an innocent 
 woman ? ' I told him not to answer the question before I directed 
 him to. He nodded his head, but he did not answer the question, 
 because he had no right to, as the other side objected. If you are 
 going to try that woman, and she being dead is unable to be here
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 279 
 
 to defend herself, can you not at least have charity enough to let 
 her last words come in in her defence ? Will you try one who is 
 not only absent from the court, but is dead? While trying one 
 that is dead, will you deny to her the poor privilege of having the 
 last word she uttered on earth spoken in her vindication? Were 
 you afraid of it? Did you feel that the words would sink deep 
 into the hearts of everybody that was here in this room, and in 
 the United States, and cause to well up from that heart a fountain 
 of mercy, rich and pure as the fountain that sprang from the rock 
 at the bidding of the sacred rod ? Shame on you ! Prepared for 
 the world to come, and marching to the scaffold, with her God 
 before her and the world behind her, and a load of sin laid at the 
 feet of Almighty God, and no hope but in that eternal mercy upon 
 which we must all rely, I ask whether she cannot at such an hour 
 speak for herself? No! you answer. Why not? is it likely she 
 would lie? No, gentlemen, they will not say that. Then why is 
 it? They did not want to hear it. Oh, they must indeed be 
 hardened of heart, reckless of guilt, and indifferent to justice. But 
 although they had no desire to hear it, they do hear it, and you 
 hear it, for as that voice spoke then, it speaks now, and will con- 
 tinue to speak until justice is meted out. It whispers and is 
 heard. It descends upon the head of that boy, and breaths on 
 each of your hearts Yes, gentlemen, that woman in the nameless 
 grave in yonder arsenal yard, the cerements of which have been 
 broken by the government, comes here to vindicate her child. 'A 
 nameless grave' did I say? Yes, alas! too true. Aye, sir, it 
 would seem as if the ordinary feelings of humanity and common 
 respect for the dead, to say nothing of regard for the honor of our 
 country and sympathy for the sufferings of a distracted and loving 
 daughter, would suggest to those pressing the prosecution (and 
 who have charge of the matter) to allow this poor girl the privilege 
 of paying a simple tribute to a mother's love by having her remains 
 removed from a felon's grave. Yes ! there that mother lies in a 
 nameless grave, on which no flower is allowed to be strewn by 
 that heart-broken daughter, who for the past two years has been 
 earnestly pleading that she might have the privilege of placing 
 those last sad, and to her, sacred relics, where filial love might 
 weep the tear, and a filial hand plant a flower on the tomb."
 
 280 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Mr. Merrick then went on to meet the argument that Surratt 
 had confessed his guilt by flight by declaring that the mad pas- 
 sions of the hour, and tyrannical usurpations of the government in 
 its method of dealing with those charged with this crime, by send- 
 ing them before a military commission instead of a civil court for 
 trial, justified him in his flight. 
 
 He then went on to vindicate the Catholic Church, which he 
 claimed had been assailed in this matter. The only reference to 
 the Catholic Church in connection with this trial had been made 
 in the public press. The prosecution had carefully abstained from 
 any assault on that church, and had tried to exclude religious 
 prejudices from the minds of the jurors. 
 
 Mr. Merrick, however, seized the occasion to pass an eulogium 
 on that church, in which he showed as much disregard for the 
 facts of history as he did for the proven facts in this case. Per- 
 haps he felt this vindication to be called for from the fact that 
 most of the conspirators were Catholics in religion, and the further 
 fact that the friends who waited and watched for the return of his 
 client to Montreal after the assassination, and who, on his return, 
 spirited him away and kept him secreted for five months and then 
 helped him off to Italy, where he was found in the ranks of the 
 Pope's army, and who voluntarily came before the court on his 
 trial to testify, and to procure testimony in his behalf, were priests 
 of that church. In his eulogium on that church he forgot to 
 mention the fact that the Pope at an early period of the war 
 acknowledged the Southern Confederacy and wrote a sympathiz- 
 ing letter to Jefferson Davis, in which he called him his dear son 
 and denounced President Lincoln as a tyrant. He could scarcely 
 have forgotten that the Pope of Rome had sought to take advan- 
 tage of the arduous struggle in which our government was engaged 
 for the preservation of its life, to establish a Catholic Empire in 
 Mexico, and had sent Maximillian, a Catholic prince, to reign over 
 that, at that time, unhappy people, under the protection of the 
 arms of France, lent to the furtherance of his unholy purpose by 
 the last loyal son of the church that ever occupied a throne in 
 Europe. Perhaps he did not realize that it was God who frus- 
 trated that last grasp of the drowning man at a straw that eluded
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 281 
 
 his grasp, by preparing for his holiness, the Pope, and for Louis 
 Napoleon just at that moment the Franco-Prussian war, which 
 resulted in the final loss of his temporal power to the Pope and 
 with it his grip on the world, and of his empire and crown to the 
 last servile supporter of his temporal pretensions. To claim for 
 that church, as Mr. Merrick did, friendship to civil liberty, respect 
 for the rights of conscience and of private judgment, and love for 
 our republican institutions, is to ignore, or set at naught, all the 
 dogmas of that church on the above questions and all the claims 
 of the Papacy. Mr. Merrick manifestly thought that the attitude 
 of the Catholic clergy toward the assassination of the President 
 could be hidden from public view by his fulsome eulogy. 
 
 The appeals made by the eminent counsel for the prisoner to 
 the political and religious prejudices of jurors was ably seconded 
 all through the trial by the Jesuit priesthood of Washington City 
 and the vicinity. It will be recalled by scores of people who 
 attended the trial that not a day passed but that some of these 
 were in the court-room as the most interested of spectators. That 
 they were not idle spectators may be inferred from the fact that 
 whenever it seemed necessary to the prisoner's counsel to find wit- 
 nesses to contradict any testimony that was particularly damaging 
 to their cause they were always promptly found, and were almost 
 uniformly Catholics in religion, as shown by their own testimony 
 on their cross-examination. It was a remarkable fact, also, that 
 these witnesses were scarcely ever able to come from under the 
 fire of Judge Pierrepont's searching cross-examinations uncrippled, 
 and also that when they took the risk of bringing two witnesses in 
 rebuttal of the same testimony their witnesses uniformly killed 
 each other off before they got through the ordeal that tests the 
 truthfulness of witnesses the cross-examination. Other outside 
 influences were brought to bear on jurors, such as these : Father 
 John B. Menu, from St. Charles College, spent a day in the court- 
 room, sitting beside the prisoner all day, thus saying to the jury, 
 "You see which side I am on." A great many of the students 
 from the same college also visited the trial, it being vacation, and 
 they uniformly took great pains to show their sympathy with the 
 prisoner by shaking hands with him. The press also was prosti-
 
 282 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 tuted almost daily by publishing cunningly devised paragraphs im- 
 pugning the motives of the government in the prosecution and man- 
 agement of the case. Thus were the prejudices of jurors appealed 
 to and efforts also made to pervert public opinion. 
 
 I have quoted thus at length from Mr. Merrick's argument to show, 
 first the animus of the defense toward the government, and especially 
 toward the Judge Advocate General, Joseph Holt, and the Secretary 
 of War at time of the assassination, Edwin M. Stanton. These two 
 officers of the government need no vindication at my hands before 
 the loyal people of this country, as they were never denounced by 
 any but rebels, whose especial venom against them would be the 
 strongest presumptive evidence of their virtue and efficiency. A 
 purer man, a truer patriot, a braver, more intelligent and able officer 
 than Gen. Joseph Holt never will grace the pages of American his- 
 tory. He was only hated and denounced by rebels because of his 
 faithfulness to duty and efficiency in its performance. Of Edwin 
 M. Stanton, also, it is needless for me to say a word. His place is 
 fixed in history, and his record cannot be blurred by the false and 
 vile charges or insinuations of his enemies, for his enemies were 
 only found amongst the enemies of his country, and precisely for the 
 same reason that they were enemies of the Judge Advocate General. 
 The charges here so boldly made that they stood between Mrs. 
 Surratt and an appeal to the Executive for clemency, was shown to 
 be false by Judge Pierrepont, who produced the official record of the 
 trial of the conspirators, together with a paper signed by some mem- 
 bers of the court recommending commutation of the sentence of Mrs. 
 Surratt to imprisonment for life on account of her age and sex, and 
 showed that this whole record had been laid before the President and 
 a full cabinet, and that after mature discussion and consideration it 
 had received their unanimous approval, with the exception of the 
 request for the commutation of Mrs. Surratt's sentence which, though 
 not a part of the record, was presented with it ; and that the Presi- 
 dent's order for the execution of the sentence of the court had been 
 written on the back of this very record. 
 
 These papers containing this whole record were handed to Mr. 
 Merrick, who tossed them from him indignantly, afterwards assign- 
 ing as his reason for doing so that he had learned to distrust every-
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 283 
 
 thing that came from the Bureau of Military Justice. His real reason 
 was that he did not desire to be estopped from reiterating the 
 falsehoods he had so boldy proclaimed. 
 
 His denunciation of the Judge Advocate General for assisting 
 the prosecution by furnishing them with witnesses, to prove facts 
 found on his records, if he did indeed thus assist, is unmerited ; as 
 it is not only the duty of every private citizen, but of every public 
 officer as well, to assist, if it be in his power to do so, in securing 
 the ends of justice where crimes have been committed, and the safety, 
 peace, and welfare of society put in jeopardy. His deliberate false 
 assumption that the prosecution had put Mrs. Surratt on trial is 
 worthy of note, as he himself dragged her case in even before a 
 jury was impaneled; and his colleague, Mr. Jos. H. Bradley, Jr., in 
 his opening speech, had also brought it up in such a way that the 
 District Attorney was forced to notice it. It was evidently a pre- 
 meditated scheme of the defense, and was done for the purpose of 
 appealing to the prejudices of jurors, and of making political capital. 
 
 Mr. Merrick's protrayal of the scenes incident to the execution 
 of Mrs. Surratt was a fine piece of eloquent and pathetic declamation. 
 We cannot but deplore, however, that the fine sensibilities of the 
 counsel had not found occasion for their display in the case of the 
 widow and orphan child of the martyred President, rather than in 
 the person of one proven guilty of complicity in his assassination, 
 and of being so actively engaged in that tragedy that she had traveled 
 twenty miles on that fatal Friday afternoon to carry, at Booth's re- 
 quest, a field glass which he had delivered to her for the purpose, 
 to Surrattsville, to be deposited and delivered by Lloyd, at her re- 
 quest, along with the carbines and the whiskey, to the assassins on 
 that night, when fleeing from the seat of their crime, and from 
 offended justice. It is to be deplored that he had no tears for the 
 crazed widow and orphan child of the murdered President, when 
 he could find such a generous fountain for his murderers. Such, 
 however, is the deplorable effect of political and religious pre- 
 judice on frail human nature, that it perverts our moral sensibilities 
 and warps our judgment. Mr. Merrick could see nothing but 
 innocence in the prisoner and his mother, although the proof of 
 their guilt was piled mountain high. It will have been noticed that
 
 284 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 he unequivocally asserts that the Supreme Court of the United 
 States had decided that the commission that tried the assassins 
 was an illegal tribunal. We shall have occasion hereafter to 
 show that this is untrue. 
 
 If the counsel for the defense was not aware of this fact, it was 
 because they had failed to grasp the meaning of the decision to 
 which they referred, and on which they relied. 
 
 It was neither fair nor honest in them, after dragging into the 
 trial the question of Mrs. Surratt's guilt or innocence, and that 
 for the purpose we have above indicated, to endeavor, in the face 
 of the facts, to shift the burden of the responsibility for this on to 
 the prosecution. It was equally dishonest to insinuate that the 
 prosecution of John H. Surratt was not entered upon alone for the 
 purpose of ascertaining his guilt or innocence, but in order that the 
 false stories that had been published in regard to the course of the 
 government in executing Mrs. Surratt might be set at rest. The 
 most eloquent counsel for the defence, ably assisted by his colleagues, 
 endeavored to put the government, and not the prisoner, on trial 
 before the jury, and before the country. They uniformly and boldly 
 asserted his innocence, whilst they arraigned the government for 
 having murdered, according to one, and butchered according to 
 another, an innocent woman ; and also of being in this trial engaged 
 in an endeavor to cover up the guilt of shedding her innocent blood, 
 by shedding the blood of her innocent son. To cap the climax 
 of their audacity Mr. Bradley, after reiterating the charges made by 
 Mr. Merrick and Joseph H. Bradley, Jr. , asked the jury, in making 
 up their verdict, to make a written statement at the same time of 
 their belief that Mrs. Surratt had been unjustly condemned, and 
 found guilty upon insufficient evidence. 
 
 They charged the government with dishonesty in withholding 
 Booth's diary from the commission ; claiming thdt it would have 
 proven Mrs. Surratt's innocence. They could not have failed to 
 know, as able lawyers, that this diary was of no account whatever 
 as evidence. It was no more admissible than was Atzerodt's con- 
 fession, as every entry that was made in it was made with the 
 almost certainty of his capture in view, and for the purpose 
 of concealing the greatness of the conspiracy and its personnel.
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 285 
 
 It was of no more value than was his declaration in favor of his 
 fellow-conspirator, Herold, that he was an innocent man, made a few 
 moments before he was shot. 
 
 In his argument on the defense of an alibi set up by the prisoner, 
 Mr. Merrick makes great account of the evidence of the detectives 
 who visited and searched Mrs. Surratt's house at two o'clock on the 
 morning of the I5th of April, that Mrs. Surratt declared that John 
 was not there, and that she had not seen him for two weeks. 
 
 She claimed that he was in Montreal, and that she had received 
 a letter from him on the day previous. They well knew that her 
 declarations had no value as testimony, and that there was evidence 
 flatly contradicting her statements. 
 
 That she had received the letter as claimed, was true ; but that 
 that letter had been written for the very purpose of being used in 
 the defence of an alibi is evident from its contents, when considered 
 in connection with the evidence in the case. It will be remembered 
 that Wiechmann, who was a boarder in the house, answered the door- 
 bell, when the detectives rang it for the purpose of demanding admit- 
 tance, that they might search the house. He rapped at Mrs. Surratt's 
 door and informed her as to who was at the door and what they 
 had come for. Her answer was, " For God's sake, let them come 
 in ; I have been expecting them." 1 When they inquired for her son 
 she said, " He is not here ; I have not seen him for two weeks." 
 This was a sufficient answer, but her guilty conscience would not 
 let her stop here, she had to add, " There are a great many mothers 
 who do not know where their sons are." Let us ask ourselves at 
 this point, how many mothers in Washington City at that hour of 
 that eventful night were lying awake expecting their houses to be 
 searched by detectives? Our inner consciousness will unerringly 
 dictate the answer, " Not one who was innocent of crime. " It is 
 only necessary to say, further, in regard to this defense set up, of 
 an alibi, that although there is no more common defense resorted 
 to by criminals, because there is none more easy of establishment, 
 there was never perhaps in all the history of jurisprudence a weaker 
 and more unsuccessful effort made to establish it than in this defense. 
 The effort made by the prisoner to establish an alibi showed plainly 
 
 1 See p. 394, Trial of Surratt; also supplemental affidavit of L. J. Wiechmann.
 
 286 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 that he had endeavored to prepare for it, in anticipation for his 
 defense, and that, in this preparation he had had able help. There 
 is good reason to conclude that he and a half dozen other of his 
 friends in Canada had found an opportunity to visit Canandaigua 
 in disguise, for the purpose of doctoring up a hotel register to be 
 used in evidence. The effort after all, proved a miserable failure. 
 
 That he went from Montreal to Elmira, N.Y., leaving the former 
 place at two o'clock on the morning of the I2th of April, was ad- 
 mitted. There was evidence that he was in Elmira on the morning 
 of the 1 3th, and two or three credible witness were found who swore 
 that they saw him there either on the I3th or I4th. They were 
 willing to conclude that it might have been on the I4th ; but would 
 not positively swear that it was. On the other hand the government 
 produced two witnesses who identified him as a man whom they 
 saw on the road making his way towards Baltimore, on the I3th, 
 one of whom ferried him over the Susquehanna river, and stopped 
 mid-stream to collect his fare, and so talked with him and had a 
 good look at him. It was then proven by nearly a dozen witnesses 
 that they saw him in Washington City on the I4th. So that the 
 great preponderance of evidence was against the alibi ; and so it 
 legally failed. The defense was lame and weak at every point in the 
 light of the evidence, which all tended to show the prisoner's guilt. 
 It was only strong in the bold efforts of his counsel to scout all 
 the testimony against him, and to have the jury accept their 
 assertions of his innocence, backed by their weight of character 
 as lawyers, in lieu of evidence, to establish his innocence, and in 
 contumning and rejecting that which established his guilt. 
 
 They also made great complaint that they were not allowed to 
 prove by John Matthews, the contents of the paper which he 
 alleged was put into his hand by Booth, a few hours before the 
 commission of his crime, with the request that he would, on the 
 following day, upon certain contingencies, give it to the editor of 
 the National Intelligencer for publication, and which Matthews 
 claimed to have destroyed. Of course they knew that nothing 
 could be proven by this paper, much less by evidence as to its 
 contents, yet, when it was not admitted by the court, they reserved 
 an exception, and then in argument claimed that had they been
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 287 
 
 allowed the benefit of this, they could have shown that the pur- 
 pose of assassination was not formed until that day, and that 
 neither the prisoner nor his mother was in it. 
 
 Matthews afterwards published what he said he desired to testify 
 to, but was not permitted to do so by the Court. The statement 
 that he claimed to be of Booth in this paper, gave the lie to 
 Atzerodt's confession. These able lawyers knew full well that 
 culprits, anticipating arrest and trial, could not be permitted to 
 manufacture evidence in their own favor in advance. Yet they 
 did not scruple to use, in an indirect way, in argument before the 
 jury, this very testimony that had been excluded. Booth's diary, 
 Booth's statement for publication, Atzerodt's confession, and the 
 lecture of John H. Surratt, in which he makes his confession and 
 statement of the affair, are all of a piece, and alike unworthy of 
 credit, because they are all contradicted by sufficient and reliable 
 testimony in every important particular. The eloquence of coun- 
 sel in regard to the grave of Mrs. Surratt, who was buried in the 
 grounds of the old arsenal, being a nameless grave, is wasted 
 eloquence in the mind of every loyal man and woman in the 
 country, as the heniousness of the crime of which she was con- 
 victed, made it fitting that she should sleep in a nameless grave, 
 and that the spot of her resting-place be unknown, as an admoni- 
 tion to all traitors to their country, and its free institutions of gov- 
 ernment, and whose disloyalty fits them for the highest crimes that 
 man can commit, of the infamy that awaits them in the just ver- 
 dict of an outraged people. Mrs. Surratt's remains were given up 
 to her daughter two years later, in 1 869. 
 
 We will now give a few of the opening paragraphs of Judge 
 Pierrepont's argument for the prosecution, in which he disposes of 
 the outside and irrelevant matter that had been lugged into the 
 defense, and out of which they had endeavored to make so much 
 capital. 
 
 " May it please your honor, and gentlemen of the jury, I have 
 not, in the progress of this long and tedious cause, had the oppor- 
 tunity as yet of addressing to you one word. My time has now 
 arrived, 'Yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.' When 
 the book of Job was written, this was true, and it is just as true
 
 288 ASSASSIN A TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 to-day. A man, in order to save his life, will give his property, 
 will give his liberty, will sacrifice his good name, and will desert 
 his father, his brother, his mother and his sister. He will lift up 
 his hand before Almighty God and swear that he is innocent of 
 the crime with which he is charged. He will bring perjury upon 
 his soul, giving all that he hath in the world, and be ready to take 
 the chances and jump the life to come ; and so far as counsel 
 place themselves in the situation of their client, and just to the 
 degree that they absorb his feelings, his terror, and his purposes, 
 just so far will counsel do the same. 
 
 " I am well aware, gentlemen, of the difficulties under which I 
 labor in addressing you. The other counsel have all told you that 
 they know you and that you know them. They know you in 
 social life, and they know you in political affairs. They know 
 your sympathies, your habits, your modes of thought, your pre- 
 judices even. They know how to address you, and how to 
 awaken your sympathies, whilst I come before you a total 
 stranger. There is not a face in those seats that I have ever 
 beheld until this trial commenced, and yet I have a kind of feel- 
 ing pervading me that we are not strangers. 
 
 " I feel as though we had a common origin, a common country, 
 and a common religion, and that, on many grounds, we must have 
 a common sympathy. I feel as though, if hereafter I should meet 
 you in my native city, or in a foreign land, I should meet you, not 
 as strangers, but as friends. It was not a pleasant thing for me 
 to come into this case. I was called into it at a time ill-suited in 
 every respect. I had just taken my seat in the convention called 
 for the purpose of forming a new constitution for my State, and I 
 was a member of the judiciary committee. The convention is now 
 sitting, and I am now absent where I ought to be present. I 
 feel, however, that I had no right to shirk this duty. 
 
 " The counsel asked whether I represented the Attorney Gen- 
 eral in this case. They had, perhaps, the right to ask, and so 
 asking I give you the answer. There surely is no mystery about 
 the matter. The District Attorney, feeling the magnitude of this 
 case, felt that he ought to apply to the Attorney General 
 for assistance in the prosecution of it, and he accordingly made
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 289 
 
 the application. I have known the Attorney General for more 
 than twenty years. Our relations have been most friendly, both 
 in a social and professional point of view. The Attorney General 
 conferred with the Secretary of State, who is, as you know, from 
 my own State, and they determined to ask me to assist in the 
 prosecution of this cause. On receiving a letter from the Secre- 
 tary of State, I came to Washington, when I met him and the 
 Attorney General. This is the way I happened to be here en- 
 gaged in this case ; and I may say that I am assured that there 
 was no member of the cabinet but those two who ever heard or 
 knew of my retainer until after my arrival here. I have simply 
 tried to perform my duty as I best could, but I have, no doubt, 
 failed to a great extent. A trial, protracted as this has been, and 
 in such oppressive weather, is indeed a trial. It is a trial to the 
 court, it is a trial to you, it is a trial to the counsel, it is a trial to 
 health, it is a trial to patience, and it is a trial to temper. 
 
 "When the President of the United States was assassinated, Iwas 
 one of a committee sent on by the citizens of New York to attend 
 his funeral. When standing, as I did stand, in the east room by 
 the side of that coffin, if some citizen sympathizing with the 
 enemies of my country had, because my tears were falling in sorrow 
 over the murder of the President, there insulted me, and I had at 
 that time repelled the insult with insult, I think my fellow-citizens 
 would have said to me that my act was deserving of condemnation ; 
 that I had no right, in that solemn hour, to let my petty passions 
 or my personal resentments disturb the sanctity of the scene. To 
 my mind the sancitity of this trial is far above that funeral occasion, 
 solemn and holy as it was, and I should forever deem myself dis- 
 graced if I should ever allow any passion of mine or personal resent- 
 ment of any kind to bring me here into any petty quarrel over the 
 murder of the President of the United States. I have tried to re- 
 frain from anything like that, and God helping me, I shall so 
 endeavor to the end. 
 
 " To me, gentlemen, this prisoner at the bar is a pure abstraction. 
 I have no feeling toward him whatever. I never saw him until I 
 saw him in this room, and then it was under circumstances cal- 
 culated to awaken only my sympathy. I never knew one of his
 
 2QO ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 kindred, and never expect to know one of them. To me he is a 
 stranger. Toward him I have no hostility, and I shall not utter 
 any word of vituperation against him. I came to try one of the 
 assassins of the President of the United States, as indicted before 
 you. I laid personal considerations aside, and I hope I shall 
 succeed in keeping them from this cause, so far as I am concerned. 
 I believe, gentlemen, that what you wish to know in this case is 
 the truth. I believe it is your honest desire to find out whether 
 the accused was engaged in this plot to overthrow this government 
 and assassinate the President of the United States. My duty is to 
 try to aid you in coming to a just conclusion. When this evidence 
 is reviewed, and when it is honestly and fairly presented, when 
 passions are laid aside, and when other people who have nothing 
 to do with the trial are kept out of the case, you will discover that 
 in the whole history of jurisprudence no murder was ever proved 
 with the demonstration with which this has been proven before 
 you. The facts, the proofs, the circumstances all tend to one 
 point, and all prove the case, not only beyond a reasonable, but 
 beyond any doubt. 
 
 " This has been, as I have already stated, a very protracted case. 
 The evidence is scattered. It has come in link by link, and as we 
 could not have witnesses here in their order when you might have 
 seen it in its logical bearings, we were obliged to take it as it came ; 
 and now it becomes my duty to put it together and show you what 
 it is. I shall not attempt, gentlemen, to convince you by bold 
 assertions of my own. I fancy I could make them as loudly and as 
 confidently as the counsel on the other side, but I am not here for 
 that purpose. The counsel are not witnesses in the cause. We 
 have come here for the purpose of ascertaining whether under the 
 law and on the evidence presented, this man arraigned before you 
 is guilty as charged. I do not think it proper that I should tell 
 you what I think about everything that may arise in the case, or 
 that I should tell you that I know that this thing is so, and that 
 the other is another way. My business is to prove to you from 
 this evidence that the prisoner is guilty. If I do that I shall ask 
 your verdict. If I do not do that, I shall neither expect nor hope 
 for it. "
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY 7 "HE DEFENSE. 29! 
 
 " I listened, gentlemen, to the two counsel who have addressed 
 you for several days, without one word of interruption. I listened 
 to them respectfully and attentively. I knew their earnestness, and 
 I know the poetry that was brought into the case, and the feeling 
 and the passion that was attempted to be excited in your breasts, 
 by bringing before you the ghost trailing her calico dress and 
 making it rustle against these chairs. I have none of these powers 
 which the gentlemen seem to possess, nor shall I attempt to invoke 
 them. I have come to you for the purpose of proving that this 
 party accused here was engaged in this conspiracy to overthrow 
 this government, which conspiracy resulted in the death of Abra- 
 ham Lincoln, by a shot from a pistol in the hands of John Wilkes 
 Booth. That is all there is to be proven in this case. 
 
 " I have not come here for the purpose of proving that Mrs. 
 Surratt was guilty or that she was innocent, and I do not under- 
 stand why that subject was lugged into this case in the mode that 
 it has been ; nor do I understand why the counsel denounced the 
 military commission who tried her, and thus indirectly censured, 
 in the severest manner, the President of the United States. The 
 counsel certainly knew when they were talking about that tribunal, 
 and when they were thus denouncing it, that President Johnson, 
 President of the United States, ordered it with his own hand ; that 
 President Johnson, President oi the United States, signed the 
 warrant that directed the execution ; that President Johnson, 
 President of the United States, when that record was presented to 
 him, laid it before his cabinet, and that every single member voted 
 to confirm the sentence, and that the President with his own hand, 
 wrote his confirmation of it, and with his own hand signed the 
 warrant. I hold in my hand the original record, and no other man, 
 as it appears from that paper, ordered it. No other one touched 
 this paper ; and when it was suggested by some of the members 
 of the commission that in consequence of the age and the sex 
 of Mrs. Surratt it might possibly be well to change her sentence 
 to imprisonment for life, he signed the warrant for her death with 
 the paper right before his eyes and there it is (handing the 
 paper to Mr. Merrick). My friend can read it for himself. 
 
 " My friends on the other side have undertaken to arraign the
 
 292 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 government of the United States against the prisoner. They have 
 talked very loudly and eloquently about this great government of 
 twenty-five or thirty millions of people being engaged in trying to 
 bring to conviction one poor young man, and have treated it as 
 though it was a hostile act, as though two parties were litigants 
 before you, the one trying to beat the other. Is it possible that it 
 has come to this, that, in the city of Washington, where the Presi- 
 dent has been murdered, that when under the form of law, and 
 before a court and jury of twelve men, an investigation is made to 
 ascertain whether the prisoner is guilty of this great crime, that 
 the government are to be charged as seeking his blood, and its 
 officers as lapping their tongues in the blood of the innocent? I 
 quote the language exactly. It is a shocking thing to hear. What 
 is the purpose of a government? What is the business of a govern- 
 ment? According to the gentlemen's notion, when a murder is 
 committed the government should not do anything towards ascer- 
 taining who perpetrated that murder ; and if the government did 
 undertake to investigate the matter and endeavor to find out 
 whether the man charged with the crime is guilty or not guilty 
 the government and all connected with it must be expected to be 
 assailed as 'blood hounds of the law,' and as seeking 'to lap their 
 tongues in the blood of the innocent. ' Is that the business of 
 government, and is it the business of counsel under any circum- 
 stances thus to charge the government? What is government 
 for? It is instituted for your protection, for my protection, for 
 the protection of us all. What could we do without it? Tell me, 
 my learned and eloquent counsel on the other side, what would 
 you do without a government? What would you do in this city? 
 Suppose, for instance, a set of young men, who choose to lead an 
 idle life, say to themselves that it is not right that some rich man 
 living here should be enjoying his hoarded wealth, and they break 
 into his house at night and steal therefrom. My learned friend 
 would say, when you came to prosecute them for that robbery, 
 ' What ! would you have this great and generous government of 
 twenty-five or thirty millions of people pursue these poor young 
 men, who merely tried to break into the house of one of your 
 citizens and steal his money? Should not this government be
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 293 
 
 generous and let them go? Oh, yes! Let them off. Well, they 
 are let off, and a few days afterward they break into the house of 
 my friend, Mr. Merrick, for the purpose of stealing his money, 
 when he, a brave man, undertakes to resist them, and in doing so 
 they strike him down in death. Oh, generous government ! with 
 twenty-five or thirty millions of people, let the young men off. 
 Why should a great and generous government with all its powers 
 be pursuing the young men who thus murdered Mr. Merrick while 
 attempting to prevent a robbery at his house? 
 
 " Why should the officers of the government be ' lapping their 
 tongues in the blood of the innocent?' Suppose this view as to 
 the duty of a government were universally entertained, what would 
 be the result? How long would your government last? How 
 long would you hold a dollar of property? How long would the 
 safety of your daughters be secure? How long would the life of 
 your sons, who stand in resistance to lust and rapine, be safe? I 
 have never heard such shocking sentiments uttered in relation to 
 the duty of government from any human lips, or from any writer 
 on the face of the earth. We have been told here that our govern- 
 ment has nothing of divinity that hedges it about ; that it is only 
 the government of man's making. The Bible tells us that all 
 government is of God ; that the powers that be are ordained of 
 God ; and I can tell you, gentlemen, if such are the sentiments of 
 this country that there is no divinity and no power of God that 
 hedges about this government, its days are numbered, its condem- 
 nation is already written, and it will lie in the dust before many 
 years have rolled by. No government that is not of God will last. 
 It will soon come to naught. No other government ever did long 
 exist. No other government can exist. Every government which 
 is a government of the people is of God, and the powers that be 
 are ordained of God. When you come together to the polls, and 
 you elect as the ruler of this great nation a President, he is made 
 so by the sanction of your votes, and in that act the voice of the 
 people becomes the voice of God. I repeat, a government which 
 is thus instituted is ordained of God, and it is as much hedged 
 about as that of any king that ever reigned on England's throne- 
 Is it possible that our countrymen will say that the government
 
 294 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 which we thus have made, which our fathers established, and which 
 we are thus cherishing, has nothing of divinity hedging it about? 
 
 "Does it rest alone on human whim, without having anything 
 sacred about it, and without any protection of the Almighty over 
 it? If so, let me again repeat, its days are numbered; it will soon 
 pass away. Once there was an empire in Rome. It was an em- 
 pire which was in its day the greatest which the human mind had 
 ever reared ; but it did not believe, or rather ceased to believe, 
 that there was a God who ruled ; that government was of God ; 
 and they ceased to punish great crimes, such as treason, rapine, 
 and murder, and it happened a very short time after they ceased 
 to inflict punishment for such crimes ceased to exercise the 
 powers which belong to government that the Roman empire 
 tumbled into ruins. 
 
 " It was trampled down by the barbarians, and now not a son of 
 the Caesars lives on the face of the earth, and not a descendant of 
 a Roman matron exists anywhere in this wide universe. The em- 
 pire perished, and crumbled into dust; nothing but its ashes remain. 
 And thus will it ever be whenever a people cease to obey God, 
 and cease to think that government is of God. Let us see what 
 the Bible says on this subject ; what views were entertained in the 
 Old Testament, and what in the New. " Mr. Pierrepont then read 
 from ist Samuel, chapter xv, as follows: 
 
 " ' Samuel also said unto Saul, the Lord sent me to anoint thee to 
 be king over his people, over Israel ; now therefore hearken thou 
 unto the voice of the words of the Lord. 
 
 "'Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek 
 did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came 
 up from Egypt. 
 
 " 'Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they 
 have, and spare them not ; but slay both man and woman, infant 
 and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 
 
 " 'And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them 
 in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot-men, and ten thousand men 
 of Judah. 
 
 "'And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the 
 valley. 

 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 295 
 
 " 'And Saul said unto the Kenites, go, depart, get you down 
 from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them ; for ye 
 showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up 
 out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amale- 
 kites. 
 
 "'And Saul smote the Amalekites, from Havilah until thou 
 comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. 
 
 "'And he took Agag, the king of the Amalekites, alive, and 
 utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 
 
 " ' But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the 
 sheep, and of the oxen,and of the fatlings, and of the lambs, and 
 all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them ; but every 
 thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly. 
 
 " ' Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It 
 repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king ; for he is turned 
 back from following me, and hath not performed my command- 
 ments. And it grieved Samuel, and he cried unto the Lord all 
 night. 
 
 " ' And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, 
 it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he 
 set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone 
 down to Gilgal. 
 
 " ' And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said unto him, blessed 
 be thou of the Lord ; I have performed the commandment of the 
 Lord. 
 
 " ' And Samuel said, what meaneth then this bleating of sheep 
 in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? 
 
 " 'And Saul said, they have brought them from the Amalekites; 
 for the people spared the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, to 
 sacrifice unto the Lord thy God, and the rest we have utterly de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 " 'Then Samuel said unto Saul, stay, and I will tell thee what 
 the Lord hath said to me this night. And he said unto him say on. 
 
 " ' And Samuel said, when thou wast little in thine own sight, 
 wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord 
 anointed thee king over Israel? 
 
 " ' And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, go and utterly
 
 296 
 
 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 destroy the sinners of the Amalekites, and fight against them until 
 they be consumed. 
 
 " ' Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, 
 but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord. 
 
 " ' And Saul said unto Samuel, yea, I have obeyed the voice of 
 the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and 
 have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed 
 the Amalekites. 
 
 " ' But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief 
 of the things, which should have been utterly destroyed to sacrifice 
 to the Lord thy God in Gilgal. 
 
 " ' And Samuel said, hath the Lord as great delight in burnt 
 offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Be- 
 hold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat 
 of rams. 
 
 " ' For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is 
 as iniquity and idolatry; because thou hast rejected the word of 
 the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king. 
 
 " ' And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned, for I have trans- 
 gressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words ; because I 
 feared the people, and obeyed their voice. 
 
 " ' Now, therefore, I prayed thee, pardon my sin, and turn again 
 with me that I may worship the Lord. 
 
 " ' And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee ; for 
 thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected 
 thee from being king over Israel. 
 
 " ' And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon 
 the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. 
 
 " ' And Samuel said unto him, the Lord hath rent the kingdom 
 of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of 
 thine, that is better than thou. 
 
 " ' And also the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent ; for he 
 is not a man that he should repent. 
 
 " ' Then he said, I have sinned ; yet honor me now, I pray thee, 
 before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again 
 with me, that I may worship the Lord thy God. 
 
 " ' So Samuel turned again after Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord.
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 297 
 
 " ' Then said Samuel, bring ye hither to me Agag, the king of 
 the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And 
 Agag said, surely the bitterness of death is past. 
 
 " ' And Samuel said, as thy sword has made women childless, so 
 shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed 
 Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. 
 
 " ' Then Samuel went to Ramah ; and Saul went up to his house 
 to Gibeah of Saul. 
 
 " ' And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his 
 death ; nevertheless, Samuel mourned for Saul ; and the Lord 
 repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.' " 
 
 Mr. Pierrepont then read from the eighteenth chapter of St. 
 Matthew as follows: 
 
 " 'Woe unto the world because of offences, for it must needs be that 
 
 offences come ; but woe unto that man by whom the offence cometh. 
 
 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged 
 
 about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.' 
 
 " Such was the order in the times of this Book. All government 
 is of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Now, from 
 whom come those words ? Not from the Old Testament, but they 
 come from the meek and lowly Jesus, the Saviour of the world, who 
 died for you, for me, for all. It is true as the counsel have said, 
 that God is a God of mercy ; but he says : ' Though I am a God 
 of mercy, I will by no means clear the guilty. ' Now the counsel 
 who has addressed you, you will remember, said in his speech, with 
 great earnestness : ' We have had blood enough ; let us have 
 peace. ' The question before you, gentlemen, is not about blood. 
 The question is not about peace. The question before you is 
 whether you have not had murder enough, and assassination enough, 
 and crime enough, to enable us to have at least once before a civil 
 tribunal in this land a trial and a verdict. Not a single one of all 
 those engaged in the conspiracy has been tried before a civil tri- 
 bunal ; and the question now is, have you not had enough of this 
 murder, enough of this assassination, to have at least one jury of 
 the country say so, and to say that we will stop it? You and I 
 have nothing to do with the consequences. All we have to do is 
 to do our duty, and ascertain whether the man is guilty. You do
 
 298 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 not punish the man ; I do not punish the man. I have not a 
 feeling toward him of punishment, and you have no such feeling. 
 The duty does not lie with you, nor with me ; we have nothing to 
 do with that. The question for us is to see whether this man is 
 guilty of this violation of the law of the land as charged ; and if 
 so, to so declare ; and then, if for any cause, the Executive sees fit 
 to show leniency, he will show it. If he does not, he will not. It 
 is not for you or for me to have to say what the leniency should be. 
 It is not for you or for me to have anything to say upon that 
 question. Our business is, I repeat, to ascertain whether he is 
 guilty of this violation of the law, and if he is guilty, so to say, 
 and then afterward to say whatever we thought fit to be said with 
 regard to any leniency. Our duty is, and the duty of the court is, 
 to find out that one fact, and to have you pronounce your verdict, 
 under your oath, according to the facts as you find them. 
 
 " There are one or two other things that I must notice before I 
 come to the main question. One of these is in regard to the attacks 
 which were made by counsel yesterday upon the learned District 
 Attorney and myself. Have you seen anything in the conduct of 
 the District Attorney in this case that was improper? Have you 
 seen anything but an earnest desire to discharge his duty? If I 
 understood the counsel aright yesterday, he said that if he should 
 stand in the place and should have done as the District Attorney 
 had, he would expect the women, as they passed him, to gather 
 their skirts and pull them aside, lest they be contaminated by the 
 touch. I did not at that time know why there was so much bitter- 
 ness of feeling thus expressed, but I have been shown since last night 
 this record called the ' Rebellion Record,' and I find in it that on 
 the 5th of January, 1861, Edward C. Carrington, now District 
 Attorney, issued to the public a stirring letter calling out the militia 
 of this District for the purpose of aiding in the protection of the 
 government of the United States ; calling upon them to rally ; and 
 they did rally at his call. The fact of this native born citizen of 
 Virginia, one of your own number and living in your midst, having 
 thus early and practically taken the side in favor of the government, 
 when even his own State had deserted him, of course would be likely 
 to call down the greatest bitterness and hatred against this loyal and
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 299 
 
 noble citizen on the part of a certain class. We have been told, 
 gentlemen, by the counsel upon the other side, that the Judge 
 Advocate General had done a great many wrong things in his life. 
 We have been told that the military commission which Mr. Johnson 
 had established, and he alone, had done wrong things in their prose- 
 cution ; and we have been told, likewise, that the Supreme Court 
 of the United States had decided that this commission was illegal. 
 Now you would hardly expect an eminent lawyer to make such a 
 statement unless he believed it. But he is wholly mistaken. No 
 court in the United States has declared this commission to have 
 been illegal. There is no such decision on record not any. 
 
 " Some of these very persons are now in confinement, and if the 
 Supreme Court of the United States had declared the commission 
 that tried them illegal, why should they now, in a time of profound 
 peace, be kept in prison? If such were the case would not an 
 application have been immediately made by my learned brother 
 for a writ of habeas corpus to release them? But nothing of the 
 kind is done. And why? Because no such decision has ever 
 been pronounced. No court has, and in my judgment no court 
 will, pronounce this commission, thus formed by the President of 
 the United States, to have been illegal. " 
 
 As this is a question of the gravest importance we all ought to 
 know whether, as claimed twice in the arguments of defendant's 
 counsel, the military commission which tried the conspirators and 
 assassins has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States to have been an illegal tribunal. Judge Pierrepont, as we 
 have seen, asserts boldly that in his judgment no such decision had 
 ever been given by that tribunal, or ever would be. That the 
 counsel for the defense did not really so understand it he clearly 
 shows by the fact that they had never asked for a writ of habeas 
 corpus in behalf of those who were working out the sentence of the 
 commission. To his opinion I will now add that of Judge Fisher 
 as given in his charge to the jury. It is as follows: 
 
 "You have been told, gentlemen, in the argument of this case, 
 that those who were tried before that military commission, and 
 hung upon its findings, were themselves the victims of a base and 
 disgraceful conspiracy to murder. Brave, gallant, and honest sol-
 
 300 
 
 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 diers of their country have been held up before you as inhuman 
 butchers of innocent men. It has been said in support of this 
 denunciation, that the Supreme Court of the United State have, in 
 the case of Milligan, declared that the military court which tried 
 Herold and others for the murder of Abraham Lincoln was an 
 illegal tribunal, organized without law, without right, and without 
 warrant in the Constitution a mere convocation of military men, 
 having no right to try the cause committed to them by President 
 Jo'hnson ; and it has been said that it was convoked not to try but 
 to condemn. 
 
 " In my humble judgment the Supreme Court has made no such 
 decision. If so, why have not the prisoners now confined upon the 
 Dry Tortugas for complicity in the greatest crime of the age been 
 released from their confinement? They have sympathizing friends 
 enough to have applied any such decision in the direction of their 
 deliverance, and they would not have remained there a week after 
 the decision had been made to the effect that they were unlawfully 
 restrained of their liberty. If I understand the decision in Milli- 
 gan's case aright, it went upon the ground that the commission 
 which tried Milligan was not organized in obedience to the act of 
 Congress providing for the punishment of such crimes as he was 
 charged with committing, and the opinion of the majority of the 
 court went upon the additional ground that no hostile foot had 
 ever pressed the soil of Indiana at the time when he was arraigned 
 before a military tribunal there, and that, therefore, that tribunal 
 which condemned him for acts of treason committed in that State 
 had no. authority to try him, notwithstanding the whole nation was 
 involved in the most terrible struggle for its life. The majority 
 opinion being thus predicated upon a misapprehension of historic 
 truth, we could not, perhaps, have looked for a more rightful 
 deduction. 
 
 "Unprepared, however, as all loyal hearts were for such an 
 anouncement, the American people would be even yet more 
 astounded to have it declared by any court in this country that 
 the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, the President of the 
 United States, has not the power in time of war to institute a 
 military commission for the purpose of trying a gang of spies and
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 30! 
 
 traitors who have found their way within the intrenched encamp- 
 ments of the nation's capital to take the life of the chief of the 
 army and navy, to assassinate all the heads of the executive de- 
 partments, in the interest of the pretended government with which 
 the federal government was engaged in war. They who maintain 
 such a doctrine profess to defend it upon the ground that no such 
 power is delegated by the constitution, as they did who could find 
 no warrant there to coerce seceding States into submission to the 
 federal authority ; but the day has passed by when honest states- 
 men will longer, if they ever did, regard the sovereignty of the 
 federal Union as possessing no powers save those expressly enum- 
 erated in the Constitution. 
 
 "The government of the United States was doubtless created by 
 the adoption of the Constitution. But when it had once been 
 spoken into being it stood upon the same level with other nations, 
 and was clothed with all the powers incident to an independent 
 sovereignty under the laws of nature and of nations, and among 
 these was the power, in time of war or great public emergency, to 
 arrest and inflict upon spies and traitors the most summary pun- 
 ishment, whenever and wherever the strong hand of military justice 
 can be laid upon them. It is a power incident to the right and 
 duty of self preservation, and ought to be exercised, just as the 
 individual owes it to himself to strike down the assassin who is 
 feeling for his heartstrings, without waiting to lose his own life, in 
 order that the courts of justice may, at their leisure, proceed to 
 try the felon according to the formularies of the law and the Con- 
 stitution. The right of self-defense needs not to be inscribed upon 
 parchment, either for individuals or for sovereign states. The 
 Almighty impressed this right and duty upon the hearts and minds 
 of men long before he wrote the decalogue upon the tables of stone. 
 To say that this government has not the power in time of war to 
 exercise this great duty of self-preservation, for want of warrant in 
 the Constitution, is to condemn the action of the government in 
 acquiring from France and Spain and Mexico and Russia territory 
 lying far beyond the limits of the original thirteen States, because 
 such power of acquisition and growth is not provided for by the 
 Constitution. Both these powers are but the incidents of sove-
 
 302 
 
 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 reignty, requiring no warrant in written governmental charter; 
 they are derived from the common law of nations, and are co-ex- 
 istent with sovereignty. 
 
 " But with this military commission, gentlemen, you have no con- 
 cern at this time ; whether it was a legel or illegal tribunal, is not 
 the matter on which you are now called to decide. The oath that 
 you have taken requires that you shall ' well and truly try, and true 
 deliverance make between the United States of America and John 
 H. Surratt, the prisoner at the bar, whom you have in charge, and 
 a true verdict give according to your evidence.' The prisoner 
 stands before you indicted for the murder of Abraham Lincoln on 
 the 1 4th day of April, 1865, in this city. About the time and 
 place and manner of the death of your late President no contro- 
 versy has been made in the case. If there had been your recol- 
 lection of a nation in tears, and of a whole civilized world in 
 mourning would have revived your memory of the sad and 
 terrible fact. The only question, therefore, for you to determine 
 is, whether the prisoner at the bar participated with John Wilkes 
 Booth and the others named in the indictment, or either or any of 
 them, in the diabolical crime. If, from all the evidence in the case, 
 your minds shall be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt growing 
 out of that evidence that the prisoner did co-operate with them ; 
 if that shall have produced a moral conviction in your minds that 
 the prisoner did participate in the conspiracy to murder, or in a 
 plot to do some unlawful act which resulted in this foul murder, 
 no consideration as to the legality or illegality of the tribunal 
 which tried the prisoner's mother; no feelings of sympathy for 
 other members of the family; no consideration of his youth, or 
 that other lives have already been forfeited for the crime, should 
 for a single moment, tempt you to step aside from the plain path- 
 way of duty." 
 
 The last paragraph quoted is directed to some of the many art- 
 ful appeals made to the political prejudices or to the feelings of the 
 jury to swerve them from the duty devolved upon them by their 
 oath. The former paragraphs may well be said to set at rest for- 
 ever the question of the right of a government to defend its life 
 when the occasion requires it by sending offenders against its life
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 303 
 
 before a military commission for trial. This question may be taken 
 as settled, as is the question of the right of the federal government 
 to coerce into submission a refractory State. The opportunity 
 thus sought by the prisoner's counsel to foist upon the public mind 
 the assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States had made 
 a decision denying to the government this right, thus gave occasion 
 not only for denying that such opinion had ever been delivered, 
 but also for showing that it never could be. 
 
 It will be remembered that for reasons heretofore given the 
 crime charged in the indictment was simply that of murder the 
 murder of Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 The fact of his being, at the time of his murder, the President of 
 the United States was not mentioned. The treasonable purpose of 
 that murder* was also omitted no reference being made to the poli- 
 tical reasons that moved the conspirators to the commission of the 
 crime. The counsel for the defense contended most earnestly that 
 because of these omissions the fact of the official position of Abra- 
 ham Lincoln and of the political motives that inspired the crime 
 could not be taken into consideration in the trial of the prisoner. 
 They argued that it must be regarded in law simply as the murder of 
 a man, and as a crime no more henious in character than the murder 
 of the humblest citizen. Had the crime of treason been alleged in 
 the indictment the defense would have been entitled to have a list of 
 the witnesses by whom the government expected to prove the crime 
 in advance of the trial ; and it would have taken two witnesses to 
 have established an overt act. The defense contended that because 
 they were not entitled to these advantages under this indictment 
 the prosecution could derive no advantages from the consideration 
 of these facts ; and that the case must be treated simply as a case 
 of murder. The spirit of their argument would rather indicate 
 that they really regarded it in the same light that Miss Anna Sur- 
 ratt did, as " nothing more than the death of the meanest nigger 
 in the Union army. " ' The following is Mr. Pierrepont's reply to 
 their argument on this point: 
 
 " Our learned friends on the other side have told us, in the pro- 
 gress of their argument, that they could not subscribe in the least 
 
 1 Testimony of JL. J. Wiechmann, p. 454, Report of the trial of John H. Surratt.
 
 304 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 degree to the doctrine that it was a higher crime to conspire against 
 . the government of the United States, and through that conspiracy 
 commit a murder upon the Chief Magistrate, than it was to murder 
 the humblest vagabond in the streets, or words to that effect. Now 
 that is not the doctrine of a statesman ; it is not the doctrine of the 
 Bible ; it is not the doctrine of the law. It is a far more heinous 
 crime to conspire against the government of the United States and 
 to murder its President for the purpose of bringing anarchy and 
 confusion on the land, than to murder a single individual. It is 
 because its consequences are so much more terrible. It is because 
 it is involving the lives of hundreds and of thousands. It is 
 because it is involving considerations affecting the stability, the 
 protection, the life, and the liberty, it may be, of a nation. The 
 law of England, which I have cited, but which it would seem, my 
 friends have not read, lays it down, and without a statute, but as 
 the common law, that it is a crime of such heniousness as to admit 
 of no accessories. 
 
 "They, however, undertake to say that the crime of the murder 
 of the President of the United States in time of war or great civil 
 commotion, is not as henious a crime as it would be in England to 
 murder the Chief of their country ; and that there is no divinity 
 about our government. What is its origin? All government is 
 either of God or the devil, and they will have to take their choice. 
 I say that the government is of God, and that no other govern- 
 ment will stand. What says the civilized world upon this subject? 
 I wrote a note to the Secretary of State two days ago, asking 
 him to send me the letters that were transmitted from the different 
 governments of the civilized world upon the subject of this murder, 
 and what do you think he sent me? He sent me the note I hold 
 in my hand and with it this large printed volume. It takes every 
 line and word of that book, a book of 717 pages, closely printed, 
 to contain the letters of condolence that were written to this govern- 
 ment from the foreign governments of the world. Entire Christen- 
 dom wrote, entire Christendom looked upon it as one of the most 
 horrible of crimes one that required every nation, even to the 
 Turk, to write for the purpose of expressing their abhorrence of 
 the crime. And, gentlemen, I hold in my hand the original paper
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 305 
 
 sent by some 13,000 rebel prisoners, and our prisoners, at Point 
 Lookout. Here is the paper in which these rebel prisoners, met 
 together, passed their resolutions of condemnation, and their curse 
 upon this crime. I would try this case before any twelve of those 
 rebel prisoners, and feel certain of a verdict, and yet the gentlemen 
 tell us this murder is like that of the commonest vagabond that 
 ever walked the streets, and the crime no higher. Not so thought 
 the rebels ; not so thought any honorable man in arms against us ; 
 not so thinks any right-minded man upon the face of the earth." 
 
 
 
 The judge in giving his charge to the jury, addressing himself 
 to this point, spoke as follows: 
 
 " Historians and text writers on the law may treat of the heinous- 
 ness of the crime of imagining the death of a weak or a wicked 
 king or of a wise or benignant monarch, but you know, gentlemen, 
 as well as you know that you exist, that to murder the duly elected 
 President of the most powerful people on earth, is not less atrocious 
 in its character than to compass the death of a king, or an em- 
 peror, albeit he may have sprang from the loins of the people, 
 who have made, him their representative head, and may have no 
 royal blood coursing through his veins. You may be told that it 
 is a crime surpassingly heinous to take or compass the life of him 
 who has occupied a throne simply because he may be the king of 
 an enslaved people, but that to take the life of the President of a 
 free republic is an offense of no greater magnitude than to murder 
 the 'veriest vagabond that walks your streets'; but an American 
 jury will only believe this doctrine when the people have become 
 so demoralized and corrupt, so devoid of the love of liberty and 
 patriotic feeling, as to prefer to have a king and ruler foisted upon 
 them by the accident of birth or fortunate adventure, rather than 
 have the making of their own selection of him who is to execute 
 their laws, and, for the time being, to stand as the representative 
 head of their collective sovereignty. 
 
 " It is a mistake to suppose that a free people in any country 
 will ever consider it a more henious crime to kill a king, or even to 
 desire his death, than it is to assassinate a President. It is of no 
 avail to tell you that to surround the life of a President of a republic 
 with safeguards as sacred and powerful as those which, in mon-
 
 306 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 archies, are thrown about a king, as you have been told in the 
 argument, is a modern idea, ' entertained only by those whose eyes 
 have been dazzled by visions of stars and garters, and who are 
 desirous of changing our free institutions for a monarchical form of 
 government. ' 
 
 " On the contrary, they can only be opposed to guarding with 
 sacred vigilance the life of the President of a free people who are 
 themselves prepared to submit to the rule of a despot. Why should 
 the people be less proud or less regardful of the life of a ruler 
 selected by themselves, from among themselves, than they*would 
 be of the life of him who claimed to rule over them of his own 
 right? When this question can be sensibly answered, I shall be 
 willing to admit that the life of a President is less worth preserving 
 than that of a king, and that to destroy the life of a President is a 
 crime of less atrocity than to merely desire the death of a prince ; 
 but not till then ; nor do I believe you will." 
 
 The practical legal bearing of this question on the trial was as 
 to whether the prisoner, being proven to have been a member of 
 the conspiracy which resulted in the death of President Lincoln by 
 the hands of a fellow-conspirator, should be held as a principal in 
 the crime, or only an accessory before the fact. In other words 
 whether the court and jury could take cognizance of the official 
 position of Abraham Lincoln without its being alleged in- 
 the indictment. If he could be regarded as a principal and not 
 as an accessory he could be held equally guilty with Booth 
 although he might not have been present and assisting in the 
 assassination. 
 
 Practically, however, this was not a matter of any consequence 
 in this trial, because it was proven beyond a doubt that the prisoner 
 was actually present, acting a conspicious part in the execution of 
 the plot. It was also proven by the testimony of one witness whose 
 testimony was in no way impeached that it was he, and not Spang- 
 ler, who prepared and fitted the bar to the door to prevent Booth 
 being followed into the box at the theatre. The summing up of 
 the evidence by Judge Pierrepont in his concluding speech is one 
 of the most admirable and masterly efforts that can be anywhere 
 found. In the first place it is a model of judicial fairness and
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 
 
 307 
 
 honesty. To him the prisoner was evidently a pure abstraction 
 toward whom he had no feelings. His only effort was to weigh 
 impartially the evidence in the case, and to give to it a fair and 
 common sense interpretation. He brushed away all side issues 
 and every effort of the prisoner's counsel to bring the trial under 
 the influence of political and of religious perjudices, and held them 
 strictly to the question of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, as 
 shown by the evidence. Again it was a model effort in its logical 
 ability in bringing the evidence before the jury. He had so com- 
 pletely analyzed the testimony that he was able to present it in its 
 logical connection as to time, purpose, and circumstances ; tracing 
 the plot through the evidence before him, from its incipiency to its 
 completion, step by step, showing the bearing and relation that one 
 thing sustained to another in a most conclusive and unanswerable 
 way. 
 
 He had systematically and logically arranged the testimony, 
 which had necessarily been presented in a most desultory and un- 
 satisfactory way, from the fact that the evidence had to be taken 
 just as witnesses were found to be present. By great care and 
 labor the judge had arranged the evidence just in the order in which 
 he would have chosen to introduce it had the witnesses all been at 
 his command at the momeuit he would have chosen to use them. 
 Having thus arranged the testimony, he simply read it to the jury, 
 stopping when necessary to comment on it and interpret it. His 
 fair, natural, common sense interpretation of the facts proven 
 could not fail to bring conviction to every intelligent, and candid 
 mind. That the proof before him had brought to the mind of this 
 eminent and experienced advocate and jurist the most complete 
 conviction of the prisoner's guilt, is shown throughout his argument. 
 He did not, however, leave the matter of his own convictions to be 
 the subject merely of inference, but left himself on record on this 
 point as follows : 
 
 " In this case I feel justified in saying, that the prisoner is proved 
 to be guilty, and in as overwhelming a manner as any man was 
 ever proven guilty in the history of jurisprudence. I appeal to 
 any judge, any lawyer, any man who has had experience, if there 
 was ever a case where the guilt of the party, was more clearly
 
 308 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 demonstrated. He is proven guilty not only beyond a reasonable 
 doubt, but beyond the possibility of any doubt. There is not a man of 
 you who can doubt it. It has been a strange case. It was a strange 
 providence that brought the man back here to be tried. And 
 now that he is here, you, the twelve men who in the providence 
 of God have been selected to try the case, are to say whether 
 what he has done is right or not right ; whether he is guilty or 
 not guilty. 
 
 " That is for you to say, not for me. I know he is proved guilty. 
 About that there can be no doubt. I do not believe that any of 
 you have any doubt whatever on that subject." 
 
 That the purpose of this conspiracy was to assassinate the heads 
 of the government from its very first inception, is made clear by 
 the whole run of the evidence brought out on the two trials. 
 Atzerodt, in his confession, which he had gotten up to be used in his 
 defence, claims that he was a member of a conspiracy to kidnap 
 the President, and carry him to Richmond. John H. Surratt, in 
 his Rockville lecture, claims the same thing. They both claim 
 that when Booth laid aside this plan as impracticable, and proposed 
 to change it to a conspiracy to assassinate, that they withdrew, 
 and would have nothing further to do with it. It is evident that 
 the statements of both are false, both as regards the original purpose 
 of the conspiracy, and also their abandonment of it. Surratt in 
 his confessions to McMillen stated that he received a letter from 
 Booth in Montreal on the loth of April. This letter was written 
 from New York, and summoned him to Washington at once, as it 
 had become necessary for them to change their plans and to act 
 quickly. 
 
 He left Montreal in obedience to this summons on the I2th of 
 April, and was in Elmira on the morning of the I3th. In his 
 defense of an alibi, he tried to prove that he remained at Elmira 
 until after the I5th, and then returned to Montreal, where he arrived 
 on the 1 8th. 
 
 His counsel argued that the plan up to that time had been tc 
 capture, and that it was then for the first time that Booth had de- 
 termined to assassinate ; that this was the change of plan referred 
 to in his letter, and that, as Surratt, according to their plea, never
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 309 
 
 saw him after this change of plan had been determined upon, he 
 knew nothing about it, and was never a member of a conspiracy 
 to assassinate. He admitted that he left Montreal in response to 
 Booth's letter, but claimed that he did not go any further than 
 Elmira, in his defense. 
 
 This, also, is his story in his Rockville lecture, in which he admits 
 that he was a member of the conspiracy to capture the President, 
 but asserts that he was never a member of the conspiracy to assas- 
 sinate him. Why did he obey Booth's summons which required 
 him to come at once to Washington ? Why did he come by way of 
 Elmira? He says in his lecture that he went to Elmira in the 
 interest of a plan to liberate the rebel prisoners that were held at 
 that place. He had just been to Richmond, carrying dispatches 
 from Davis and Benjamin to their agents in Canada. Active meas- 
 ures were at once resorted to to accomplish the assassinations that 
 had been planned without delay, and had the scheme been fully 
 realized it was no doubt a part of this plan to bring into active 
 service at once all the secret treasonable military organizations 
 throughout the North, liberate all the rebel prisoners held in North- 
 ern prisons, and inaugurate a new rebellion in the North, in aid of 
 the existing rebellion in the South. Surratt admits that he went 
 to Elmira on this business. He went there no doubt to arrange 
 with other conspirators there for carrying out this purpose when 
 notified of the success of the assassination plot. No doubt similar 
 arrangements had been made at Chicago to liberate the prisoners 
 at Camp Douglass ; and perhaps at other places. The partial fail- 
 ure of the assassination plot, and the signal triumph of our arms, 
 admonished these Northern traitors that they had better not enter 
 the arena of actual war, and frustrated all the plans of Jefferson 
 Davis and his Canada Cabinet. Surratt's admissions are right in 
 the line of our theory, and tend to prove its correctness ; but his 
 claim that he was only a member of a conspiracy to capture is mani- 
 festly untrue. Let us hear the conclusion of that eminent jurist, 
 Judge Pierrepont, founded on a careful consideration of all the evi- 
 dence on this point. " Now you see gentlemen, what is meant by 
 a change of plan. In the spring of 1864 the plan was to murder 
 Mr. Lincoln. They laid various plans for its accomplishment.
 
 3IO ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 They thought to do it as he went to the Soldiers' Home, by the 
 telescopic rifle, and they did not intend, in the event of concluding to 
 carry out that plan, to let his wife or his child stand in their way. 
 They then thought to do it by having Payne call upon Mr. Lincoln, 
 get into conversation with him, listen to his stories, seem to be inter- 
 ested in them, and then, at that moment, to strike the knife home, 
 deep into his heart. They at another time thought to poison him, 
 and for this purpose tried the cup ; but it seemed that that failed 
 them once, and, as Booth said, might fail them again. They finally 
 concluded they would try to kill him in the theatre, instead of on 
 his way to the Soldiers' Home, and have Payne kill Secretary 
 Seward at his house. That plan they carried out. But, gentle- 
 men, notwithstanding this change of plan, never was there for more 
 than a year any other purpose than to murder. They had long 
 since abandoned the idea of kidnapping, for that required too much 
 machinery, too many men, and subjected them to too much 
 danger; and the changes in plan that had taken place recently were 
 simply as to the mode of killing, and the men who should strike the 
 fatal blow." Here we have the mature opinion of an eminent jurist, 
 founded on a thorough and careful examination of all the evidence, 
 and we feel confident that no candid, intelligent man who studies 
 all the evidence with care can come to any other. 
 
 Having had occasion to follow the history of this sad affair from 
 its incipiency to its conclusion, as revealed by the evidence pro- 
 duced before the commission, and that brought out on the civil 
 trial, my purpose in writing this book has been fulfilled. It was, 
 first, to correct many grave errors in public opinion that have 
 grown out of a wilful and ingenious suppression of the truth and 
 an unblushing publication of falsehoods, in order to cover up from 
 view the fact that the assassination of President Lincoln was the 
 result of a deep-laid political scheme to subvert the government 
 of the United States in aid of the rebellion ; that it was not 
 merely the rash act of Booth and his co-conspirators, to whom 
 the work was intrusted ; but that behind these stood Jefferson 
 Davis and his Canada cabinet; that it was the work of a great 
 conspiracy. 
 
 The second object of the author was to vindicate the govern-
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 31 I 
 
 ment in its method of dealing with the assassins, and to show that 
 the decisions of the commission were founded on adequate testi- 
 mony. And, lastly, to so gather up and present the truth, as shown 
 by the evidence, that his work might be of some service to the 
 future historian. He feels that he has kept faithful to his purpose 
 to present nothing but the truth. He feels that by this he has not 
 only vindicated the government, but that also in doing this he has 
 vindicated the commission. He has shown that a military com- 
 mission was the only tribunal before which the conspirators and 
 assassins could properly be tried ; that the right of the government 
 to try offenses of this character is a power inherent in sovereignty 
 as is the right of personal self-defence a right that inheres to the 
 individual ; that the laws of war recognize this right and justify its 
 exercise. The wisdom of the government in dealing thus sum- 
 marily with these offenders was seen in its effect on the Canada 
 conspirators, who at first were swearing that " they were not done 
 yet," but who were driven to their holes by the prompt and wise 
 action of the government in dealing thus summarily with their 
 hired assassins as fast as they were caught. The government thus 
 compelled its enemies to respect its authority. 
 
 And, finally, the result of the trial of one of the conspirators 
 before a civil court, more than anything else, vindicates its wisdom 
 in sending these prisoners before a military tribunal for trial. 
 
 Side Lights on the Conspiracy. 
 
 John Matthews gives us the substance of a paper put into his 
 hands by Booth on the afternoon of the assassination, which closed 
 as follows: "Men who love their country better than their lives 
 Booth, Payne, Atzerodt, and Herold." ' It will be observed that 
 Booth here identifies Atzerodt with the conspiracy and the evi- 
 dence shows that he relied on Atzerodt at that time to perform 
 the part he assigned to him : to assassinate Vice- President Johnson. 
 He had transferred Atzerodt from the Pennsylvania House, where 
 he had been boarding, to the Kirkwood House on the morning of 
 that day, having engaged his room but for one day, and paying for 
 
 1 In a communication to a Philadelphia paper.
 
 3 1 2 ASSASSINA TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 it in advance. This change was made because the Vice-President 
 was stopping at the Kirkwood. 
 
 That Booth had visited Atzerodt at his room during the day was 
 shown by the fact that his coat, containing his bank book and 
 handkerchiefs marked in his name, was found in Atzerodt's room 
 where he had hung it up and then forgotten to take it again when 
 he left. That the purpose was a murderous purpose was shown by 
 the fact that a pistol, loaded and capped, together with a large 
 dagger, were found hid away in the bed. Booth had been there 
 schooling Atzerodt in his part, and had had such assurances from 
 Atzerodt that he felt safe in coupling his name with his own and 
 those of Payne and Herold in the paper referred to. Matthews 
 stated that whilst he was in conversation with Booth, General Grant 
 passed rapidly down the Avenue in an open carriage, having his 
 baggage along with him ; that he called Booth's attention to this 
 fact, when Booth left him abruptly and galloped down the avenue 
 after General Grant. Why did he do this ? What did this mean ? 
 When Atzerodt had made his way into the country, and was eating 
 his dinner on Sabbath, the i6th, at the house of Hezekiah Metz, he 
 was asked if it was true, as had been reported, that General Grant 
 had been killed, answered, " If the man who was to follow him had 
 done so, it was likely to be true. " This explains Booth's purpose 
 in galloping after General Grant when he saw that he was about to 
 leave the city. He hurried to inform O'Laughlin of the fact and 
 to have him follow the General and assassinate him on the road or 
 at the end of his journey, and had told Atzerodt of this arrange- 
 ment. We can in this way account for the fact that Atzerodt knew 
 that a man had had orders to follow him. The fact that Booth, in 
 the paper referred to, coupled Atzerodt's name with his own and 
 those of Payne and Herold as " men who loved their country better 
 than their lives" shows that he fully expected Atzerodt to perform 
 the part he had assigned him in the tragedy. O'Laughlin was no 
 doubt the man who had orders to follow the General, but upon 
 reflection, wisely declined to do so. 
 
 Dr. Mudd voluntarily confessed to Captain Button, who had 
 charge of the convicts who were sent to the Dry Tortugas, whilst 
 on their voyage thither, that he knew Booth when he came to his
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 313 
 
 house on the morning of the I5th of April; and said that he 
 denied it because he was afraid of endangering his own life, and 
 the lives of his family. He also admitted that he went to Wash- 
 ington by appointment to introduce Booth to Surratt, and that 
 Wiechmann's testimony on this point was true. Why, if innocent, 
 should he have been afraid to let it be known that Booth and 
 Herold called at his house on that morning, and what he had done 
 for them ? This fear could only have come from a consciousness 
 of guilt, and shows that he not only knew what they had done, but, 
 also, that he was implicated in theinguilt by his previous knowledge 
 of what they were going to do. John H. Surratt, after he had 
 been set at liberty, delivered a lecture at Rockville, Maryland, in 
 which he denied that he ever knew of the plot to assassinate, but 
 admitted that he was a member of a conspiracy to capture Presi- 
 dent Lincoln and carry him a prisoner to Richmond. He asserts 
 that this was Booth's purpose whilst he was co-operating with him, 
 and that they had spent a great deal of money ($10,000) in 
 preparations to effect their object. He claims that neither the 
 Richmond government, nor its agents in Canada, knew anything 
 about their scheme, and that they alone were responsible for it. 
 Where then did they get their $10,000 to spend on it? They 
 were both without means of their own, and without employment. 
 The Rockville lecture is simply a plausible tissue of falsehoods, 
 well put together, but altogether inconsistant with the whole tenure 
 of the evidence in the case. It is contradicted at almost every 
 point by the testimony we have had under review. Yet its admis- 
 sions are important, as they establish the theory of the conspiracy 
 which we have maintained. He admits that he was engaged in 
 the secret service of the Confederate government almost constantly 
 from the time he left college in the summer of 1861, and that he 
 enjoyed that service greatly, and was very active in it. He claims 
 that he was entrusted with dispatches for the agents of that govern- 
 ment in Canada, and that he passed from the one place to the 
 other frequently. He admits that he reached Montreal on the 6th 
 of April with dispatches from Davis and Benjamin to Thompson. 
 Of course he does not say that he also carried Bills of Exchange 
 on Liverpool at the same time for $70,000, or that he carried
 
 3 1 4 ASSASSINA TION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 funds at any time ; but we have had the proof of this fact. He 
 admits that he went from Montreal on the I2th of April, to Elmira, 
 New York, and claims that he remained there until after the assas- 
 sination. 
 
 This we have seen was proven to be a falsehood, yet his purpose 
 in going to Elmira, as claimed by himself, confirms our theory that 
 the plan of the conspirators was in connection with the assassina- 
 tions which they had planned to get up a Northern rebellion in aid 
 of that of the South, through the agency of the secret disloyal 
 organizations with whom they were in correspondence throughout 
 the Northwestern and Middle States, and to liberate all the rebel 
 prisoners held in Northern prisons to augment their forces, and in 
 the state of anarchy and confusion, consequent upon the depriva- 
 tion of the government of a civil head, and the army of a lawful 
 commander, they thus intended inaugurating a reign of terror 
 throughout the North that would ma*ke a further prosecution of the 
 war impossible, and by this means establish the Southern Confed- 
 eracy. Surratt says in his lecture that he went to Elmira for the 
 purpose of preparing for the release of the more than five thousand 
 rebel prisoners that were held at that place. The author, after a 
 very careful scrutiny of all the evidence relating to the question of 
 Surratt's presence in Washington on the night of the assassination, 
 and of his participation in it, has not hesitated to express the 
 opinion that this was proven. By all legal rules the plea of an 
 alibi failed as the vast preponderance of evidence went to prove 
 his presence as charged. But even if we admit that he was at 
 Elmira, as claimed, on the night of the assassination, and that he 
 remained there until the i6th of April, he is not by this admission 
 disconnected with the conspiracy, but was by his own admission 
 acting there in the interest of its purposes by setting at large the 
 five thousand rebel prisoners held there by the government. The 
 effort to aid the rebellion by this step was contingent upon the 
 accomplishment of all of the assassinations that had been planned. 
 The failure to do this rendered his mission there useless. If he 
 was there, he was there in the interest of the conspiracy. That he 
 had all of its guilt upon his conscience is shown by the facts of his 
 flight and concealment.
 
 TREATMENT OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. 315 
 
 Thompson and his gang claimed, in the fall of 1864, it will be 
 remembered, that they had eight hundred men hid away in Chicago 
 for the purpose of liberating the rebel prisoners held in Camp Doug- 
 lass. They were only waiting for a safe opportunity, for which they 
 were planning to secure an opportune moment. Why did Vallan- 
 digham break his parole in the summer of 1864 and return to 
 Ohio to become a candidate for the governorship of that state? It 
 was no doubt in the interest of this new rebellion that had been 
 planned, and that he might be in a position to carry out the details 
 of these nefarious schemes. It will be remembered that he had 
 been elected Supreme Commander of the order of American Knights 
 at their annual meeting in February, 1863. During Vallan- 
 digham's enforced absence, Robert Holloway acted as Lieutenant- 
 General, or Deputy Supreme Commander, and Doctor Massey of 
 Ohio was Secretary of State. The organization was a military one, 
 of which Vallandigham was recognized as General, and had a 
 complete army organization, and was, in 1 864, arming, drilling, and 
 preparing for a Northern rebellion, and the accomplishment of the 
 assassinations that were planned and arranged for was no doubt to 
 have been the signal for a general uprising. It may be asked, 
 why, if this theory be correct, was not this purpose carried out? 
 We answer simply because that God who planted, and has hitherto 
 watched over our nation, frustrated the scheme. He so ordered 
 the events of his providence that the carrying out of this wicked 
 scheme became manifestly impossible. The plan to deprive the 
 government of a civil head and the army of a lawful commander 
 failed. The collapse of the rebellion was precipitated so rapidly 
 that it was manifestly useless to attempt to give it aid. The valor, 
 prowess, skill, and loyalty of our victorious legions was a menace to 
 copperheadism. This secret army concluded that discretion was 
 the better part of valor, and sought safely in seclusion, but not quite 
 in silence. They still continued to hiss. 
 
 To God's over-ruling and protecting care we owe our thanks for 
 the preservation of our government, and for the peace and prosperity 
 with which we have been blessed, and it is in Him alone that we 
 can found our hopes for the future. Let us reverently study and 
 learn the lessons of our great civil war, that we may learn to avert
 
 316 ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN. 
 
 future judgments by putting away all our idols, and all the abom- 
 inations of our national life, remembering that it is righteousness 
 alone that exalteth a nation, and gives to it peace and prosperity, 
 and that sin is not only a reproach to any people, but that national 
 sins, if persisted in, justified and incorporated into national policy, 
 will inevitably call down the judgments of a holy, righteous, and 
 just God.
 
 APPENDIX
 
 PREFACE TO APPENDIX. 
 
 IN presenting the great argument of the Hon. John A. Bingham, Assistant Judge- 
 Advocate, on the trial of the assassins, the author feels that he does not need to offer 
 an apology to his readers, notwithstanding its length. 
 
 In addition to what he has already said by way of commending it to the careful 
 perusal of his readers, he will add by way of preface, the following extracts from Barnes's 
 4Oth Congress, Vol. i, showing the light in which that great effort was viewed by 
 competent judges at the time; and also giving extracts from his great argument before 
 the United States Senate on the articles of impeachment found against Andrew Johnson, 
 President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, in vindication of the 
 high encomiums bestowed by him on this distinguished statesman and advocate. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM "THE; FORTIETH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES." 
 BY WILLIAM H. BARNES: IST VOL., 4OTH CONGRESS. 
 
 Mr. Bingham served as Special Judge Advocate in the great trial of the conspirators, 
 who were tried for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, etc. Immense labor devolved 
 upon him during this difficult and protracted trial, and for eight weeks his arduous duties 
 allowed him but brief intervals of rest. He occupied nine hours in the delivery of the 
 closing arguments, in which he ably elucidated the law and the testimony in the case, 
 and conclusively proved the guilt of the conspirators. Mr. Bingham's success in this 
 great trial attracted general attention, and awakened a wide-spread curiosity to know 
 his history. Soon after the close of the trial, a correspondent of the Philadelphia Press, 
 having expressed the deep interest he had felt in arriving at a well founded conclusion 
 as to "the guilt of the conspirators and the constitutionality of the court," wrote as 
 follows: 
 
 " Grant me space in your columns to give expression to my most unqualified admira- 
 tion of the great arguments, on these two main points, presented to the court by the 
 Special Judge Advocate, Gen. John A. Bingham. In the entire range of my reading, I 
 have known of no productions that have so literally led me captive. For careful analysis, 
 logical argumentation, profound and most extensive research; for overwhelming 
 unravelment of complications that would have involved an ordinary mind only with 
 inextricable bewilderment, and for a literal rending to tatters of all the metaphysical 
 subleties of the array of legal talent engaged on the other side, I know of no two pro- 
 ductions in the English language superior to these. They are literally as the spear of 
 Ithuriel, dissolving the hardest substances at their touch; as the thread of Dsedalus, 
 leading out of the labyrinths of error, no matter how thick and mazy. Not Locke or 
 Bacon were more profound; not Daniel Webster was clearer and more penetrating; not 
 Chillingworth was more logical. I feel sure that the author of these two unrivalled 
 papers must possess a legal mind unrivalled in America, and must be, too, one of our 
 rising statesmen. But who is John A. Bingham, who by his industry and learning dis- 
 
 319
 
 320 PREFACE TO APPENDIX. 
 
 played on this wonderful trial, has placed the country under such a heavy debt of 
 obligation? He may be well known to others moving in a public sphere, like yourself, 
 but to me, so absorbed in a different line of duty, he has appeared so suddenly, and 
 yet with such vividness, that I long to know some, at least, of his antecedents." 
 
 Upon which the editor remarked: 
 
 " The question of our esteemed correspondent is natural to one who has not, probably, 
 watched the individual actors on the great stage of public affairs with the interest of the 
 historical and political student. We are not surprised that the arguments of Mr. Bing- 
 ham before the military commission should have rilled him with delight. It was worthy 
 of the great subject confided to that accomplished statesman by the Government, and 
 of his own fame. When the assassins of Mr. Lincoln were sent for trial before the 
 military court by President Johnson, the Government wisely left the whole management 
 to Judge Holt and his eloquent associate, Mr. Bingham, and to the latter was committed 
 the stupendous labor of sifting the mass of evidence, of replying to the corps of lawyers 
 for the defence, of setting forth the guilt of the accused and of vindicating the policy 
 and the duty of the executive in an exigency so novel and so full of tragic solemnity. 
 The crime was so enormous, and the trial of those who committed it so important in all 
 its issues, immediate, contingent and remote, as to awaken an excitement that embraced 
 all nations. The murder itself was almost forgotten by those who wished to screen the 
 murderers, and the most wicked theories were broached and sown broadcast by men, 
 who, under cloak of reverence for what they called the law, toiled with herculean energy 
 to weaken the arm of the Government, extended in time of war to save the servants of 
 the people from being slaughtered by assassins in public places, and tracked even to 
 their firesides by the agents and friends of slavery. These poisons of plausibility, 
 blunting the sharpest horrors of any age, and sanctifying the most hellish offenses, 
 required an antidote as swift to cure. Mr. Bingham's two great arguments, alluded 
 to by our correspondent, have supplied the remedy. They are monuments of reflection, 
 research, and argumentation; and they are presented in the language of a scholar and 
 with the fervor of an orator. In the great volume of proof and counter-proof, rhetoric, 
 and controversy that forever preserves the record of this great trial, the efforts of 
 Mr. Bingham will ever remain to be first studied with an eager and admiring interest. 
 That they came, after all that has and can be said against the Government, is rather 
 an inducement to their more satisfactory and critical consideration. For from that 
 study the American student and citizen must, more than ever, realize how irresistible is 
 Truth when in conflict with Falsehood, and how poor and puerile are all the professional 
 tricks of the lawyer when opposed to the moral power of the patriot." 
 
 In Congress Mr. Bingham has had a distinguished career, marked by important ser- 
 vices to the country. In the XXXVIIth Congress he was earnest and successful in 
 advocating many important measures to promote the vigorous prosecution of the war, 
 which had just begun. Returning to Congress in 1865, after an absence of two years, 
 he at once took a prominent position. Upon the formation of the joint committee on 
 Reconstruction, December I4th, 1865, he was appointed one of the nine members on the 
 part of the House. He was active in advocating the great measures of Reconstruction, 
 which were proposed and passed in the XXXIXth and XLth Congresses. The House 
 of Representatives having resolved that Andrew Johnson should be impeached for 
 "high crimes and misdemeanors," Mr. Bingham was appointed on the committee to 
 which was intrusted the important duty of drawing up the Articles of Impeachment. 
 This work having been done to the satisfaction of the House, Mr. Bingham was elected 
 chairman of the managers to conduct the impeachment of the President before the 
 Senate. 
 
 On him devolved the duty of making the closing argument. His speech on this 
 occasion ranks among the greatest forensic efforts of any age. He began the delivery 
 of his argument on Monday, May 4th, and occupied the attention of the Senate, and a
 
 PREFACE TO APPENDIX. 321 
 
 vast auditory on the floor and in the galleries, during three successive days. At the 
 close of his argument, the immense audience in the galleries, wrought up to the highest 
 pitch of enthusiasm, gave vent to such an unanimous and continued outburst of applause 
 as has never before been heard in the Capitol. Ladies and gentlemen, who could not 
 have been induced deliberately to trespass on the decorum of the Senate, by whose 
 courtesy they were admitted to the galleries, overcome by their feelings, joined in the 
 utterance of applause, knowing that for so doing the Sergeant-at-arms would be required 
 to expel them from the galleries. The history of the country records no similar tribute 
 to the oratorial efforts of the ablest advocates or statesmen. From so long and so well- 
 sustained an argument, it is impossible to select particular passages which would give 
 an adequate idea of the whole. The following historical argument for the supremacy of 
 the law will always be read with interest, whether as an extract, or in its original 
 setting: 
 
 "Is it not in' vain, I ask you, Senators, that the people have thus vindicated by 
 battle the supremacy of their own Constitution and laws, if, after all, their President is 
 permitted to suspend their laws and dispense with the execution thereof at pleasure, and 
 defy the power of the people to bring him to trial and judgment before the only tribunal 
 authorized by the Constitution to try him ? That is the issue that is presented before 
 the Senate for decision by these articles of impeachment. By such acts of usurpation 
 on the part of the ruler of a people, I need not say to the Senate, the peace of nations 
 is broken, as it is only by obedience to law that the peace of nations is maintained, and 
 their existence perpetuated. Law is the voice of God and the harmony of the world: 
 
 " ' It doth preserve the stars from wrong, 
 
 Through it the eternal heavens are fresh and strong.' 
 
 "All history is but philosophy, teaching by example. God is in history, and through it 
 teaches to men and nations the profoundest lessons which they learn. It does not sur- 
 prise me, Senators, that the learned counsel for the accused asked the Senate, in the 
 consideration of this question, to close that volume of instruction, not to look into the 
 past, and not to listen to its voices. Senators, from that day when the inscription was 
 written upon the graves of the heroes of Thermopylse, ' Stranger, go tell the Lacede- 
 monians that we lie here in obedience to their laws,' to this hour, no profounder lesson 
 than this has come down to us: that through obedience to law comes the strength of 
 nations and the safety of men. 
 
 "No more fatal provision ever found its way into the Constitutions of States than 
 that contended for in this defense which recognizes the right of a single despot or of 
 the many to discriminate in the administration of justice between the ruler and the 
 citizen, between the strong and the weak. It was by this unjust discrimination that 
 Aristides was banished because he was just. It was by this unjust discrimination that 
 Socrates, the wonder of the Pagan world, was doomed to drink the hemlock because of 
 his transcendant virtues. It was in honorable protest against this unjust discrimination 
 that the great Roman Senator, father of his country, declared that the force of the law 
 consists in its being made for the whole community. Senators, it is the pride and 
 boast of that great people from whom we are descended, as it is the pride and boast of 
 every American, that the law is the supreme power of the State, that it is for the protection 
 of each, by the combined power of all. By the Constitution of England the hereditary 
 monarch is no more above the law than the humblest subject; and by the Constitution 
 of the United States, the President is no more above the law than the poorest and most
 
 322 PREFACE TO APPENDIX. 
 
 friendless beggar in your streets. The usurpations of Charles I. inflicted untold injuries 
 upon the people of England, and finally cost the usurper his life. The subsequent 
 usurpations of James II., and I only refer to it because there is between his official 
 conduct and that of this accused President, the most remarkable parallel that I have ever 
 read in history, filled the heart -and brain of England with conviction that new 
 securities must be taken to restrain the prerogatives asserted by the crown, if they 
 would maintain their ancient Constitution and perpetuate their liberties. It is well 
 said by Hallam that the usurpations of James swept away the solemn ordinances of the 
 legislature. Out of those usurpations came the great revolution of 1688, which resulted 
 in the dethronement and banishment of James, in the elevation of William and Mary, 
 and in the immortal Declaration of Rights. 
 
 " I ask the Senate to notice that these charges against James are substantially the 
 charges presented against this accused President, and confessed here of record, that he 
 has suspended the laws, and dispensed with the execution of laws, and in order to do 
 this has usurped authority as the executive of the nation, declaring himself entitled under 
 the Constitution to suspend the laws and dispense with their execution. He has further, 
 like James, attempted to control the appropriated money of the people contrary to law. 
 And he has further, like James, although it is not alleged against him in the Articles of 
 Impeachment, it is confessed in his answer, and attempted to cause the question of his 
 responsibility to the people to be tried, not in the King's Bench, but in the Supreme 
 Court, when that question is alone cognizable in the Senate of the United States. 
 Surely, Senators, if these usurpations, if these endeavors on the part of James thus to 
 subvert the liberties of the people of England, cost him his crown and kingdom, the 
 like offenses committed by Andrew Johnson ought to cost him his office, and to subject 
 him to that perpetual disability pronounced by the people through the Constitution upon 
 him for his high crimes and misdemeanors. 
 
 " I ask you, Senators, how long men would deliberate upon the question whether a 
 private citizen arraigned at the bar of one of your tribunals of justice for a criminal vio- 
 lation of the law, should be permitted to interpose a plea in justification of his criminal 
 act, that his only purpose was to interpret the Constitution and laws for himself, that 
 he violated the law in the exercise of his prerogative to ,test its validity hereafter at 
 such a day as might suit his own convenience in the courts of justice. Surely it is as 
 competent for the private citizen to interpose such justification in answer to crime in 
 one of your tribunals of justice, as it is for the President to interpose it, and for the 
 simple reason that the Constitution is no respecter of persons, and rests neither in the 
 private citizen judicial power. 
 
 " Can it be that by your decree you are at last to make this discrimination between 
 the ruler of the people and the private citizen, and to allow him to interpose his assumed 
 right to interpret judicially your Constitution and laws ? Are you to solemnly proclaim 
 by your decree : 
 
 " ' Plate sin with gold, 
 
 And the strong lance of justice heartless breaks; 
 Arm it in rags and a pigmy's straw doth pierce it? ' 
 
 " I put away the possibility that the Senate of the United States, equal in dignity to 
 any tribunal in the world, is capable of recording any such decision even upon the peti- 
 tion and prayer of the accused and guilty President. Can it be that by reason of his 
 great office the President is to be protected in his high crimes and misdemeanors, viola-
 
 PREFACE TO APPENDIX. 323 
 
 tive alike of his oath, of the Constitution and of the express letter of your written law, 
 enacted by the legislative department of the government? 
 
 " I ask you, Senators, to consider that I speak before you this day in behalf of the 
 violated law of a free people, who commission me. I ask you to remember this, that I 
 speak this day under the obligations of this my oath. I ask you to consider that I am 
 not insensible to the significance of the words of which mention was made by the 
 learned counsel from New York; justice, duty, law, oath. I ask you to remember 
 that the great principles of constitutional liberty for which I speak this day, have been 
 taught to men and nations by all the trials and triumphs, by all the agonies and martyr- 
 doms of the past; that they are the wisdom of the centuries uttered by the elect of the 
 human race. 
 
 " I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of 
 the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who sacrificed them- 
 selves for their country, the Constitution, and the laws, and who by their sublime exam- 
 ples have taught us that all must obey the law; that none are above the law; that no 
 man lives for himself alone, but each for all, that some must die that the State may 
 live; that the citizen is but for to-day, that the commonwealth is for all time, and that 
 position, however high, patronage however powerful, cannot be permitted to shelter 
 crime to the peril of the Republic."
 
 ARGUMENT OF JOHN A. BINGHAM, 
 
 SPECIAL JUDGE ADVOCATE, 
 
 IN REPLY TO THE SEVERAL ARGUMENTS IN DEFENCE OF MARY 
 
 E. SURRATT AND OTHERS, CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AND 
 
 THE MURDER OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, LATE PRESIDENT 
 
 OF THE UNITED STATES, ETC. 
 
 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT : The conspiracy here charged and specified, and the 
 acts alleged to have been committed in pursuance thereof, and with the intent laid, 
 constitute a crime the atrocity of which has sent a shudder through the civilized world. 
 All that was agreed upon and attempted by the alleged inciters and instigators of this 
 crime constitutes a combination of atrocities with scarcely a parallel in the annals of the 
 human race. Whether the prisoners at your bar are guilty of the conspiracy and the 
 acts alleged to have been done in pursuance thereof, as set forth in the charge and speci- 
 fication, is a question the determination of -which rests splely with this honorable court, 
 and in passing upon which this court are the sole judges of the law and the fact. 
 
 In presenting my views upon the questions of law raised by the several counsel for 
 the defence, and also on the testimony adduced for and against the accused, I desire to 
 be just to them, just to you, just to my country, and just to my own convictions. The 
 issue joined involves the highest interests of the accused, and, in my judgment, the 
 highest interests of the whole people of the United States. 
 
 It is a matter of great moment to all the people of this country that the prisoners at 
 your bar be lawfully tried and lawfully convicted or acquitted. A wrongful and illegal 
 conviction or a wrongful and illegal acquittal upon this dread issue would impair some- 
 what the security of every man's life, and shake the stability of the republic. 
 
 The crime charged and specified upon your record is not simply the crime of murder- 
 ing a human being, but it is the crime of killing and murdering on the I4th day of April, 
 A. D. 1865, within the military department of Washington and the intrenched lines 
 thereof, Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States, and Commander-in-Chief 
 of the army and navy thereof; and then and there assaulting, with intent to kill and 
 murder, William H. Seward, then Secretary of State of the United States; and then 
 and there lying in wait to kill and murder Andrew Johnson, then Vice-President of the 
 United States, and Ulysses S. Grant, then lieutenant-general and in command of the 
 armies of the United States, in pursuance of a treasonable conspiracy entered into by 
 the accused with one John Wilkes Booth, and John H. Surratt, upon the instigation of 
 Jefferson Davis, Jacob Thompson, and George N. Sanders and others, with intent 
 thereby to aid the existing rebellion and subvert the Constitution and laws of the United 
 States. 
 
 325
 
 326 APPENDIX. 
 
 The rebellion, in aid of which this conspiracy was formed and this great public crime 
 committed, was prosecuted for the vindication of no right, for the redress of no wrong, 
 but was itself simply a criminal conspiracy and gigantic assassination. In resisting and 
 crushing this rebellion the American people take no step backward and cast no reproach 
 upon their past history. That people now, as ever, proclaim the self-evident truth that 
 whenever government becomes subversive of the ends of its creation, it is the right and 
 duty of the people to alter or abolish it; but during these four years of conflict they have 
 as clearly proclaimed, as was their right and duty, both by law and by arms, that the 
 government of their own choice, humanely and wisely administered, oppressive of none 
 and just to all, shall not be overthrown by privy conspiracy or armed rebellion. 
 
 What wrong had this government or any of its duly constituted agents done to any 
 of the guilty actors in this atrocious rebellion? They themselves being witnesses, the 
 government which they assailed had done no act, and attempted no act, injurious to 
 them, or in any sense violative of their rights as citizens and men; and yet for four 
 years, without cause of complaint or colorable excuse, the inciters and instigators of the 
 conspiracy charged upon your record have, by armed rebellion, resisted the lawful author- 
 ity of the government, and attempted by force of arms to blot the republic from the 
 map of nations. Now that their battalions of treason are broken and flying before the 
 victorious legions of the republic, the chief traitors in this great crime against your 
 government secretly conspire with their hired confederates to achieve by assassination, 
 if possible, what they have in vain attempted by wager of battle the overthrow of the 
 government of the United States and the subversion of its Constitution and laws. It is 
 for this secret conspiracy in the interest of the rebellion, formed at the instigation of the 
 chiefs in that rebellion, and in pursuance of which the acts charged and specified are 
 alleged to have been done and with the intent laid, that the accused are upon trial. 
 
 The government, in preferring this charge, does not indict the whole people of any 
 State or section, but only the alleged parties to this unnatural and atrocious conspiracy 
 and crime. The President of the United States, in the discharge of his duty as Com- 
 mander-in-Chief of the army, and by virtue of the power vested in him by the Constitu- 
 tion and laws of the United States, has constituted you a military court, to hear and 
 determine the issue joined against the accused, and has constituted you a court for no 
 other purpose whatever. To this charge and specification the defendants have pleaded, 
 first, that this court has no jurisdiction in the premises; and, second, not guilty. As 
 the court has already overruled the plea to the jurisdiction, it would be passed over in 
 silence by me but for the fact that a grave and elaborate argument has been made by 
 counsel for the accused not only to show the want of jurisdiction, but to arraign the 
 President of the United States before the country and the world as a usurper of power 
 over the lives and the liberties of the prisoners. Denying the authority of the President 
 to constitute this commission is an averment that this tribunal is not a court of justice, 
 has no legal existence, and therefore no power to hear and determine the issue joined. 
 The learned counsel for the accused, when they make this averment by way of argument, 
 owe it to themselves and to their country to show how the President could otherwise 
 lawfully and efficiently discharge the duty enjoined upon him by his oath to protect, 
 preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed. 
 
 An existing rebellion is alleged and not denied. It is charged that in aid of this 
 existing rebellion a conspiracy was entered^ into by the accused, incited and instigated 
 thereto by the chiefs of this rebellion, to kill and murder the executive officers of the
 
 APPENDIX. 327 
 
 government and the commander of the armies of the United States, and that this con- 
 spiracy was partly executed by the murder of Abraham Lincoln, and by a murderous 
 assault upon the Secretary of State; and counsel reply, by elaborate argument, that 
 although the facts be as charged, though the conspirators be numerous and at large, able 
 and eager to complete the horrid work of assassination already begun within your mili- 
 tary encampment, yet the successor of your murdered President is a usurper if he attempts 
 by military force and martial law, as Commander-in-Chief, to prevent the consummation 
 of this traitorous conspiracy in aid of this treasonable rebellion. The civil courts, say 
 the counsel, are open in the District. I answer, they are closed throughout half the 
 republic, and were only open in this District on the day of this confederation and con- 
 spiracy, on the day of the traitorous assassination of your President, and are only open 
 at this hour by force of the bayonet. Does any man suppose that if the military forces 
 which garrison the intrenchments of your capital, fifty thousand strong, were all with- 
 drawn, the rebel bands who this day infest the mountain passes in your vicinity would 
 allow this court, or any court, to remain open in this District for the trial of these their 
 confederates, or would permit your executive officers to discharge the trust committed to 
 them, for twenty-four hours? 
 
 At the time this conspiracy was entered into, and when this court was convened and 
 entered upon this trial, the country was in a state of civil war. An army of insurrec- 
 tionists have, since this trial begun, shed the blood of Union soldiers in battle. The 
 conspirator, by whose hand his co-conspirators, whether present or absent, jointly mur- 
 dered the President on the I4th of last April, could not be and was not arrested upon 
 civil process, but was pursued' by the military power of the government, captured, and 
 slain. Was this an act of usurpation? a violation of the right guaranteed to that 
 fleeing assassin by the very Constitution against which and for the subversion of which 
 he had conspired and murdered the President ? Who in all this land is bold enough or 
 base enough to assert it? 
 
 I would be glad to know by what law the President, by a military force, acting only 
 upon his military orders, is justified in pursuing, arresting, and killing one of these 
 conspirators, and is condemned for arresting in like manner, and by his order subjecting 
 to trial, according to the laws of war, any or all of the other parties to this same dam- 
 nable conspiracy and crime, by a military tribunal of justice a tribunal, I may be par- 
 doned for saying, whose integrity and impartiality are above suspicion, and pass unchal- 
 lenged even by the accused themselves. 
 
 The argument against the jurisdiction of this court rests upon the assumption that 
 even in time of insurrection and civil war no crimes are cognizable and punishable by 
 military commission or court-martial, save crimes committed in the military or naval 
 service of the United States, or in the militia of the several states when called into the 
 actual service of the United States. But that is not all the argument : it affirms that 
 under this plea to the jurisdiction the accused have the right to demand that this court 
 shall decide that it is not a judicial tribunal and has no legal existence. 
 
 This is a most extraordinary proposition that the President, under the Constitution 
 and laws of the United States, was not only not authorized, but absolutely forbidden, to 
 constitute this court for the trial of the accused, and, therefore, the act of the President 
 is void, and the gentlemen who compose the tribunal without judicial authority or power, 
 and are not in fact or in law a court. 
 
 That I do not misstate what is claimed and attempted to be established on behalf of 
 the accused, I ask the attention of the court to the following as the gentleman's (Mr. 
 Johnson's) propositions :
 
 3 28 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 That Congress has not authorized, and, under the Constitution, cannot authorize the 
 appointment of this commission. 
 
 That this commission has, " as a court, no legal existence or authority," because the 
 President, who alone appointed the commission, has no such power. 
 
 That his act " is a mere nullity the usurpation of a power not vested in the Execu- 
 tive, and conferring no authority upon you." 
 
 We have had no common exhibition of law learning in this defence, prepared by a 
 Senator of the United States; but with all his experience, and all his learning and 
 acknowledged ability, he has failed, utterly failed, to show how a tribunal constituted 
 and sworn, as this has been, to duly try and determine the charge and specification 
 against the accused, and by its commission not authorized to hear or determine any 
 other issues whatever, can rightfully entertain, or can by any possibility pass upon, the 
 proposition presented by this argument of the gentleman for its consideration. 
 
 The members of this court are officers in the army of the United States, and by 
 order of the President, as Commander-in-Chief, are required to discharge this duty, and 
 are authorized in this capacity to discharge no other duty, to exercise no other judicial 
 power. Of course, if the commission of the President constitutes this a court for the 
 trial of this case only, as such court it is competent to decide all questions of law and 
 fact arising in the trial of the case. But this court has no power, as a court, to declare 
 the authority by which it was constituted null and void, and the act *of the President a 
 mere nullity, a usurpation. Has it been shown by the learned gentleman, who demands 
 that this court shall so decide, that officers of the army may lawfully and constitutionally 
 question in this manner the orders of their Commander-in-Chief, disobey, set them aside, 
 and declare them a nullity and a usurpation ? Even if it be conceded that the officers 
 thus detailed by order of the Commander-in-Chief may question and utterly disregard 
 his order and set -aside his authority, is it possible, in the nature of things, that any body 
 of men, constituted and qualified as a tribunal of justice, can sit in judgment upon the 
 proposition that they are not a court for any purpose, and finally decide judicially, as a 
 court, that the government which appointed them was without authority? Why not 
 crown the absurdity of this proposition by asking the several members of this court to 
 determine that they are not men living, intelligent, responsible men? This would be 
 no more irrational than the question upon which they are asked to pass. How can any 
 sensible man entertain it? Before he begins to reason upon the proposition he must 
 take for granted, and therefore decide in advance, the very question in dispute, to wit, 
 his actual existence. 
 
 So with the question presented in this remarkable argument for the defence: before 
 this court can enter upon the inquiry of the want of authority in the President to con- 
 stitute them a courjt, they must take for granted and decide the very point in issue, that 
 the President had* the authority, and that they are in law and in fact a judicial tribunal; 
 and having assumed this, they are gravely asked, as such judicial tribunal, to finally and 
 solemnly decide and declare that they are not in fact or in law a judicial tribunal, but a 
 mere nullity and nonentity. A most lame and impotent conclusion ! 
 
 As the learned counsel seems to have great reverence for judicial authority, and 
 requires precedent for every opinion, I may be pardoned for saying that the objection 
 which I urge against the possibility of any judicial tribunal, after being officially quali- 
 fied as such, entertaining, much less judicially deciding, the proposition that it has no 
 legal existence as a court, and that the appointment was a usurpation and without 
 authority of law, has been solemnly ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
 APPENDIX. 329 
 
 That court say: "The acceptance of the judicial office is a recognition of the 
 arithority from which it is derived. If a court should enter upon the inquiry (whether 
 the authority of the government which established it existed), and should come to the 
 conclusion that the government under which it acted had been put aside, it would cease 
 to be a court and be incapable of pronouncing a judicial decision upon the question it 
 undertook to try. If it decides at all as a court, it necessarily affirms the existence and 
 authority of the government under which it is exercising judicial power." (Luther vs. 
 Borden, 7 Howard, 40.) 
 
 That is the very question raised by the learned gentleman in his argument that 
 there was no authority in the President, by whose act alone this tribunal was consti- 
 tuted, to vest it with judicial power to try this issue; and by the order upon your record, 
 as has already been shown, if you have no power to try this issue for want of authority 
 in the Commander-in-Chief to constitute you a court, you are no court, and have no 
 power to try any issue, because his order limits you to this issue, and this alone. 
 
 It requires no very profound legal attainments to apply the ruling of the highest 
 judicial tribunal of this country, just cited, to the point raised, not by the pleadings, but 
 by the argument. This court exists as a judicial tribunal by authority only of the Presi- 
 dent of the United States; the acceptance of the office is an acknowledgment of the 
 validity of the authority conferring it, and if the President had no authority to order, 
 direct, and constitute this court to try the accused, and, as is claimed, did, in so consti- 
 tuting it, perform an unconstitutional and illegal act, it necessarily results that the order 
 of the President is void and of no effect; that the order did not and could not constitute 
 this a tribunal of justice, and therefore its members are incapable of pronouncing a judi- 
 cial decision upon the question presented. 
 
 There is a marked distinction between the question here presented and that raised 
 by a plea to the jurisdiction of a tribunal whose existence as a court is neither questioned 
 nor denied. Here it is argued, through many pages, by a learned Senator, and a dis- 
 tinguished lawyer, that the order of the President, by whose authority alone this court 
 is constituted a tribunal of military justice, is unlawful; if unlawful it is void and of no 
 effect, and has created no court; therefore this body, not being a court, can have no 
 more power as a court to decide any question whatever than have its individual members 
 power to decide that they as men do not in fact exist. 
 
 It is a maxim of the common law the perfection of human reason that what is 
 impossible the law requires of no man. 
 
 How can it be possible that a judicial tribunal can decide the question that it does 
 not exist, any more than that a rational man can decide that he does not exist? 
 
 The absurdity of the proposition so elaborately urged upon the consideration of this 
 court cannot be saved from the ridicule and contempt of sensible men by the pretence 
 that the court is not asked judicially to decide that it is not a court, but only that it has 
 no jurisdiction; for it is a fact not to be denied that the whole argument for the defence 
 on this point is that the President had not the lawful authority to issue the order by 
 which alone this court is constituted, and that the order for its creation is null and void. 
 
 Gentlemen might as well ask the Supreme Court of the United States upon a plea to 
 the jurisdiction to decide, as a court, that the President had no lawful authority to nom- 
 inate the judges thereof severally to the Senate, and that the Senate had no lawful 
 authority to advise and consent to their appointment, as to ask this court to decide, as a 
 court, that the order of the President of the United States, constituting it a tribunal for 
 the sole purpose of this trial, was not only without authority of law, but against and in
 
 330 APPENDIX. 
 
 violation of law. If this court is not a lawful tribunal, it has no existence, and can no 
 more speak as a court than the dead, much less pronounce the judgment required at his 
 hands that it is not a court, and that the President of the United States, in constituting 
 it such to try the question upon the charge and specification preferred, has transcended 
 his authority, and violated his oath of office. 
 
 Before passing from the consideration of the proposition of the learned senator, that 
 this is not a court, it is fit that I should notice that another of the counsel for the 
 accused (Mr. Ewing) has also advanced the same opinion, certainly with more directness 
 and candor, and without any qualification. His statement is, "You," gentlemen, "are 
 no court under the Constitution." This remark of the gentleman cannot fail to excite 
 surprise, when it is remembered that the gentleman, not many months since, was a 
 general in the service of the country, and as such in his department in the West pro- 
 claimed and enforced martial law by the constitution of military tribunals for the trial 
 of citizens not in the land or naval forces, but who were guilty of military offences, for 
 which he deemed them justly punishable before military courts, and accordingly he 
 punished them. Is the gentleman quite sure, when that account comes to be rendered 
 for these alleged unconstitutional assumptions of power, that he will not have to answer 
 for more of these alleged violations of the rights of citizens by illegal arrests, convic- 
 tions, and executions, than any of the members of this court? In support of his opin- 
 ion that this is no court, the gentleman cites the 3d article of the Constitution, which 
 provides " that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme 
 court, and such inferior courts as Congress may establish," the judges whereof "shall 
 hold their offices during good behavior." 
 
 It is a sufficient answer to say to the gentleman, that the power of this government 
 to try and punish military offences by military tribunals is no part of the " judicial 
 power of the United States," under the 3d article of the Constitution, but a power 
 conferred by the 8th section of the 1st article, and so it has been ruled by the Supreme 
 Court in Dyres vs. Hoover, 20 Howard, 78. If this power is so conferred by the 8th 
 section, a military court authorized by Congress, and constituted as this has been, to try 
 all persons for military crimes in time of war, though not exercising "the judicial 
 power" provided for in the 3d article, is nevertheless a court as constitutional as the 
 Supreme Court itself. The gentleman admits this to the extent of the trial by courts- 
 martial of persons in the military or naval service, and by admitting it he gives up the 
 point. There is no express grant for any such tribunal, and the power to establish such 
 a court, therefore, is implied from the provisions of the 8th section, ist article, that 
 " Congress shall have power to provide and maintain a navy," and also " to make rules 
 for the government of the land and naval forces." From these grants the Supreme 
 Court infer the power to establish courts-martial, and from the grants in the same 8th 
 section, as I shall notice hereafter, that " Congress shall have power to declare war," 
 and " to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry this and all other powers into effect," 
 it is necessarily implied that in time of war Congress may authorize military commissions, 
 to try all crimes committed in aid of the public enemy, as such tribunals are necessary to 
 give effect to the power to make war and suppress insurrection. 
 
 Inasmuch as the gentleman (General Ewing), for whom, personally, I have a high 
 regard as the military commander of a Western department, made a liberal exercise, 
 under the order of the Commander-in-Chief of the army, of this power to arrest and 
 try military offenders not in the land or naval forces of the United States, and inflicted 
 upon them, as I am informed, the extreme penalty of the law, by virtue of his military
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 331 
 
 jurisdiction, I wish to know whether he proposes, by his proclamation of the personal 
 responsibility awaiting all such usurpations of judicial authority, that he himself shall be 
 subjected to the same stern judgment which he invokes against others that, in short, 
 he shall be drawn and quartered for inflicting the extreme penalties of the law upon 
 citizens of the United States in violation of the Constitution and laws of his country? 
 I trust that his error of judgment in pronouncing this military jurisdiction a usurpation 
 and violation of the Constitution may not rise up in judgment to condemn him, and that 
 he may never be subjected to pains and penalties for having done his duty heretofore in 
 exercising this rightful authority, and in bringing to judgment those who conspired 
 against the lives and liberties of the people. 
 
 Here I might leave this question, committing it to the charitable speeches of men, 
 but for the fact that the learned counsel has been more careful in his extraordinary argu- 
 ment to denounce the President as a usurper than to show how the court could possibly 
 decide that it has no judicial existence, and yet that it has judicial existence. 
 
 A representative of the people and of the rights of the people before this court, by 
 the appointment of the President, and which appointment was neither sought by me 
 nor desired, I cannot allow all that has been here said by way of denunciation of the 
 murdered President and his successor to pass unnoticed. This has been made the occa- 
 sion by the learned counsel, Mr. Johnson, to volunteer, not to defend the accused, 
 Mary E. Surratt, not to make a judicial argument in her behalf, but to make a political 
 harangue, a partisan speech against his government and country, and thereby swell the 
 cry of the armed legions of sedition and rebellion that but yesterday shook the heavens 
 with their infernal enginery of treason, and filled the habitations of the people with 
 death. As the law forbids a senator of the United States to receive compensation or 
 fee for defending, in cases before civil or military commissions, the gentleman volunteers 
 to make a speech before this court, in which he denounces the action of the Executive 
 Department in proclaiming and executing martial law against rebels in arms, their aiders 
 and abettors, as a usurpation and a tyranny. I deem it my duty to reply to this denun- 
 ciation, not for the purpose of presenting thereby any question for the decision of this 
 court, for I have shown that the argument of the gentleman presents no question for its 
 decision as a court, but to repel, as far as I may be able, the unjust aspersion attempted 
 to be cast upon the memory of our dead President, and upon the official conduct of his 
 successor. 
 
 I propose now to answer fully all that the gentleman (Mr. Johnson) has said of the 
 want of jurisdiction in this court, and of the alleged usurpation and tyranny of the 
 Executive, that the enlightened public opinion to which he appeals may decide whether 
 all this denunciation is just whether indeed conspiring against the whole people, and 
 confederation and agreement, in aid of insurrection to murder all the executive officers 
 of the government, cannot be checked or arrested by the Executive power. Let the 
 people decide this question; and in doing so, let them pass upon the action of the 
 senator as well as upon the action of those whom he so arrogantly arraigns. His plea 
 in behalf of an expiring and shattered rebellion is a fit subject for public consideration 
 and for public condemnation. 
 
 Let that people also note that, while the learned gentleman (Mr. Johnson), as a 
 volunteer, without pay, thus condemns as a usurpation the means employed so effectually 
 to suppress this gigantic insurrection, the New York News, whose proprietor, Benjamin* 
 Wood, is shown by the testimony upon your record to have received from the agents of 
 ihe rebellion twenty-five thousand dollars, rushes into the lists to champion the cause of
 
 33 2 APPENDIX. 
 
 the rebellion, its aiders and abettors, by following to the letter his colleague (Mr. 
 Johnson), and with greater plainness of speech, and a fervor intensified, doubtless, by 
 the twenty-five thousand dollars received, and the hope of more, denounces the court as 
 a usurpation and threatens the members with the consequences ! 
 
 The argument of the gentleman, to which the court has listened so patiently and so 
 long, is but an attempt to show that it is unconstitutional for the government of the 
 United States to arrest upon military order and try before military tribunals and punish 
 upon conviction, in accordance with the laws of war and the usages of nations, all crim- 
 inal offenders acting in aid of the existing rebellion. It does seem to me that the speech 
 in its tone and temper is the same as that which the country has heard for the last four 
 years uttered by the armed rebels themselves and by their apologists, averring that it was 
 unconstitutional for the government of the United States to defend by arms its own right- 
 ful authority and the supremacy of its laws. 
 
 It is as clearly the right of the republic to live and to defend its life until it forfeits 
 that right by crime, as it is the right of the individual to live so long as God gives him 
 life, unless he forfeits that right by crime. I make no argument to support this proposi- 
 tion. Who is there here or elsewhere to cast the reproach upon my country that for her 
 crimes she must die ? Youngest born of the nations ! is she not immortal by all the" 
 dread memories of the past by that sublime and voluntary sacrifice of the present, in 
 which the bravest and noblest of her sons have laid down their lives that she might live, 
 giving their serene brows to the dust of the grave, and lifting their hands for the last 
 time amidst the consuming fires of battle? I assume, for the purposes of this argument, 
 that self-defence is as clearly the right of nations as it is the acknowledged right of men, 
 and that the American people may do in the defence and maintenance of their own 
 rightful authority against organized armed rebels, their aiders and abettors, whatever 
 free and independent nations anywhere upon this globe, in time of war, may of right do. 
 
 All this is substantially denied by the gentleman in the remarkable argument which 
 he has here made. There is nothing further from my purpose than to do injustice to the 
 learned gentleman or to his elaborate and ingenious argument. To justify what I have 
 already said, I may be permitted here to remind the court that nothing is said by the 
 counsel touching the conduct of the accused, Mary E. Surratt, as shown by the testi- 
 mony; that he makes confession at the end of his arraignment of the government and 
 country, that he has not made such argument, and that he leaves it to be made by her 
 other counsel. He does take care, however, to arraign the country and the government 
 for conducting a trial with closed doors and before a secret tribunal, and compares the 
 proceedings of this court to the Spanish Inquisition, using the strongest words at his 
 command to intensify the horror which he supposes his announcement will excite through- 
 out the civilized world. 
 
 Was this dealing fairly by this government ? Was there anything in . the conduct of 
 the proceedings here that justified any such remark? Has this been a secret trial? Has 
 it not been conducted in open day in the presence of the accused, and in the presence 
 of seven gentlemen learned in the law, who appeared from day to day as their counsel? 
 Were they not informed of the accusation against them? Were they deprived of the 
 right of challenge? Was it not secured to them by law, and were they not asked to 
 exercise it? Has any part of the evidence been suppressed? Have not all the pro- 
 ceedings been published to the world? What, then, was done, or intended to be done, 
 by the government, which justifies this clamor about a Spanish Inquisition? 
 
 That a people assailed by organized treason over an extent of territory half as large
 
 APPENDIX. 333 
 
 as the continent of Europe, and assailed in their very capital by secret assassins banded 
 together and hired to do the work of murder by the instigation of these conspirators, 
 may not be permitted to make inquiry, even with closed doors, touching the nature and 
 extent of the organization, ought not to be asserted by any gentleman who makes the 
 least pretensions to any knowledge of the law, either common, civil, or military. Who 
 does not know that at the common law all inquisition touching crimes and misdemeanors, 
 preparatory to indictment by the grand inquest of the state, is made with closed doors? 
 
 In this trial no parties accused, nor their counsel, nor the reporters of this court, 
 were at any time excluded from its deliberations when any testimony was being taken ; 
 nor has there been any testimony taken in the case with closed doors, save that of a few 
 witnesses, who testified, not in regard to the accused or either of them, but in respect to 
 the traitors and conspirators not on trial, who were alleged to have incited this crime. 
 Who is there to say that the American people, in time of armed rebellion and civil war, 
 have not the right to make such an examination as secretly as they may deem necessary, 
 either in a military or civil court? 
 
 I have said this, not by way of apology for anything the government has done or 
 attempted to do in the progress of this trial, but to expose the animus of the argument, 
 and to repel the accusation against my country sent out to the world by the counsel. 
 From anything- that he has said, I have yet to learn that the American people have not 
 the right to make their inquiries secretly, touching a general conspiracy in aid of an 
 existing rebellion, which involves their nationality and the peace and security of all. 
 
 The gentleman then enters into a learned argument for the purpose of showing that, 
 by the Constitution, the people of the United States cannot, in war or in peace, subject 
 any person to trial before a military tribunal, whatever may be his crime or offence, 
 unless such person be in the military or naval service of the United States. The con- 
 duct of this argument is as remarkable as its assaults upon the government are unwar- 
 ranted, and its insinuations about the revival of the Inquisition and secret trials are 
 inexcusable. The court will notice that the argument, from the beginning almost to its 
 conclusion, insists that no person is liable to be tried by military or martial law before a 
 military tribunal, save those in the land and naval service of the United States. I 
 repeat, the conduct of this argument of the gentleman is remarkable. As an instance, 
 I ask the attention not only of this court, but of that public whom he has ventured to 
 address in this tone and temper, to the authority of the distinguished Chancellor Kent, 
 whose great name the counsel has endeavored to press into his service in support of his 
 general proposition, that no person save those in the military or naval service of the 
 United States is liable to be tried for any crime whatever, either in peace or in war, 
 before a military tribunal. 
 
 The language of the gentleman, after citing the provision of the Constitution, " that 
 no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a 
 presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval 
 forces or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger," is, 
 " that this exception is designed to leave in force, not to enlarge, the power vested in 
 Congress by the original Constitution to make rules for the government and regulation 
 of the land and naval forces; that the land or naval forces are the terms used in both, 
 have the same meaning, and until lately have been supposed by every commentator and 
 judge to exclude from military jurisdiction offences committed by citizens not belonging 
 to such forces." The learned gentleman then adds: " Kent, in a note to his ist Com- 
 mentaries, 341, states, and with accuracy, that ' military and naval crimes and offences
 
 334 APPENDIX. 
 
 committed while the party is attached to and under the immediate authority of the army 
 and navy of the United States and in actual service, are not cognizable under the com- 
 mon-law jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.' " I ask this court to bear in 
 mind that this is the only passage which he quotes from this note of Kent in his argu- 
 ment, and that no man possessed of common sense, however destitute he may be of the 
 exact and varied learning in the law to which the gentleman may rightfully lay claim, 
 can for a moment entertain the opinion that the distinguished chancellor of New York, 
 in the passage just cited, intimates any such thing as the counsel asserts, that the Con- 
 stitution excludes from military jurisdiction offences committed by citizens not belonging 
 to the land or naval forces. 
 
 Who can fail to see that Chancellor Kent, by the passage cited, only decides that 
 military and naval crimes and offences committed by a party attached to and under the 
 immediate authority of the army and navy of the United States, and in actual service, 
 are not cognizable under the common-law jurisdiction of the courts of the United States? 
 He only says they are not cognizable under its common-law jurisdiction; but by that he 
 does not say or intimate what is attempted to be said by the counsel for him, that " all 
 crimes committed by citizens are by the Constitution excluded from military jurisdiction," 
 and that the perpetrators of them can under no circumstances be tried before military 
 tribunals. Yet the counsel ventures to proceed, standing upon this passage quoted from 
 Kent, to say that, "according to this great authority, every other class of persons and 
 every other species of offences are within the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and entitled 
 to the protection of the proceeding by presentment or indictment and the public trial in 
 such a court." 
 
 Whatever that great authority may have said elsewhere, it is very doubtful whether 
 any candid man in America will be able to come to the very learned and astute conclu- 
 sion that Chancellor Kent has so stated in the note or any part of the note which the 
 gentleman has just cited. If he has said it elsewhere, it is for the gentleman, if he 
 relies upon Kent for authority, to produce the passage. But was it fair treatment of this 
 " great authority " : was it not taking an unwarrantable privilege with the distinguished 
 chancellor and his great work, the enduring monument of his learning and genius, to so 
 mutilate the note referred to as might leave the gentleman at liberty to make his deduc- 
 tions and assertions under cover of the great name of the New York chancellor, to suit 
 the emergency of his case by omitting the following passage, which occurs in the same 
 note, and absolutely excludes the conclusion so defiantly put forth by the counsel to 
 support his argument ? In that note Chancellor Kent says : 
 
 " Military law is a system of regulations for. the government of the armies in the 
 service of the United States, authorized by the act of Congress of April 10, 1806, 
 known as the Articles of War, and naval law is a similar system for the government of 
 the navy, under the act of Congress of April 23, 1800. But martial 'law is quite a dis- 
 tinct thing, and is founded upon paramount necessity and proclaimed by a military chief." 
 
 However unsuccessful, after this exposure, the gentleman appears in maintaining 
 his monstrous proposition, that the American people are by their own Constitution 
 forbidden to try the aiders and abettors of armed traitors and rebellion before military 
 tribunals, and subject them, according to the laws of war and the usages of nations, to 
 just punishment for their great crimes, it has been made clear from what I have already 
 stated that he has been eminently successful in mutilating this beautiful production of 
 that great mind; which act of mutilation every one knows is violative alike of the laws 
 of peace and war. Even in war the divine creations of art and the immortal productions 
 of genius and learning are spared.
 
 APPENDIX. 335 
 
 In the same spirit, and it seems to me with the same unfairness as that just noted,, 
 the learned gentleman has very adroitly pressed into his service by an extract from the 
 autobiography of the war-worn veteran and hero, General Scott, the na'mes of the late 
 secretary of war, Mr. Marcy, and the learned ex-attorney general, Mr. Gushing. 
 This adroit performance is achieved in this way : after stating the fact that General Scott 
 in Mexico proclaimed martial law for the trial and punishment by military tribunals of 
 persons guilty of " assassination, murder, and poisoning," the gentleman proceeds to, 
 quote from the autobiography, "that this order when handed to the then secretary of 
 war (Mr. Marcy) for his approval, ' a startle at the title (martial law order) was the 
 only comment he then or ever made on the subject,' and that it was 'soon silently 
 returned as too explosive for safe handling.' 'A little later (he adds) the attorney 
 general (Mr. Gushing) called and asked for a copy, and the law officer of the govern- 
 ment, whose business it is to speak on all such matters, was stricken with, legal dumb- 
 ness.'' " Thereupon the learned gentleman proceeds to say: " How much more startled 
 and more paralyzed would these great men have been had they been consulted on such 
 a commission as this ! A commission, not to sit in another country, and to try offences 
 not provided for in any law of the United States, civil or military, then in force, but in 
 their own country, and in a part of it where there are laws providing for their trial and 
 punishment, and civil courts clothed with ample powers for both, and in the daily and 
 undisturbed exercise of their jurisdiction." 
 
 I think I may safely say, without stopping to make any special references, that the 
 official career of the late secretary of war (Mr. Marcy) gave no indication that he ever 
 doubted or denied the constitutional power of the American people, acting through their 
 duly constituted agents, to do any act justified by the laws of war for the suppression of 
 a rebellion or to repel invasion. Certainly there is nothing in this extract from the 
 autobiography which justifies any such conclusion. He was startled we are told. It 
 may have been as much the admiration he had for the boldness and wisdom of the 
 conqueror of Mexico as any abhorrence he had for the trial and punishment of 
 " assassins, poisoners, and murderers," according to the laws and usages of war. 
 
 But the official utterances of the ex-attorney general, Gushing, with which the 
 gentleman doubtless was familiar when he prepared this argument, by no means justify 
 the attempt here made to quote him as authority against the proclamation and enforce- 
 ment of martial law in time of rebellion and civil war. That distinguished man, not 
 second in legal attainments to any who have held that position, has left an official 
 opinion of record touching this subject. Referring to what is said by Sir Mathew Hale, 
 in his " History of the Common Law," concerning martial law, wherein he limits it, as. 
 the gentleman has seemed by the whole drift of his argument desirous of doing, and 
 says that it is " not in truth and in reality law, but something indulged rather than 
 allowed as a law the necessity of government, order, and discipline in an army," 
 Mr. Gushing makes this just criticism: "This proposition is a mere composite blunder, 
 a total misapprehension of the matter. It confounds martial law and law military ; it 
 ascribes to the former the uses of the latter; it erroneouly assumes that the government 
 of a body of troops is a necessity more than of a body of civilians or citizens. It con- 
 founds and confuses all the relations of the subject, and is an apt illustration of the 
 incompleteness of the notions of the common-law jurists of England in regard to matters 
 not comprehended in that limited branch of legal science . . . Military law, it is 
 now perfectly understood in England, is a branch of the law of the land, applicable 
 only to certain acts of a particular class of persons and administered by special tribunals;
 
 336 APPENDIX. 
 
 but neither in that nor in any other respect essentially differing as to foundation in 
 constitutional reason from admiralty, ecclesiastical, or indeed ^chancery and common law. 
 It is the system of rules for the government of the army and navy estab- 
 lished by successive acts of Parliament. . . . Martial law, as exercised in any 
 country by the commander of a foreign army, is an element of thejtts belli. 
 
 " It is incidental to the state of solemn war, and appertains to the law of nations. 
 . . . Thus, while the armies of the United States occupied different provinces 
 of the Mexican republic, the respective commanders were not limited in authority by 
 any local law. They allowed, or rather required, the magistrates of the country, 
 municipal or judicial, to continue to administer the laws of the country among their 
 countrymen; but in subjection always to the military power, which acted summarily and 
 according to discretion, when the belligerent interests of the conqueror required it, and 
 which exercised jurisdiction, either summarily or by means of military commissions for 
 the protection or the punishment of citizens of the United States in Mexico." 
 Opinions of Attorneys General, vol. viii., 366-69. 
 
 Mr. Gushing says, " That, it would seem, was one of the forms of martial law "; but 
 he adds that such an example of martial law administered by a foreign army in the 
 enemy's country "does not enlighten us in regard to the question of martial law in 
 one's own country, and as administered by its military commanders. That is a case 
 which the law of nations does not reach. Its regulation is of the domestic resort of the 
 organic laws of the country itself, and regarding which, as it happens, there is no 
 definite or explicit legislation in the United States, as there is none in England. 
 
 "Accordingly, in England, as we have seen, Earl Grey assumes that when martial 
 law exists it has no legal origin, but is a mere fact of necessity to be legalized afterwards 
 by a bill of indemnity if there be occasion. I am not prepared to say that, under 
 existing laws, such may not also be the case in the United States." Ibid., 370. 
 
 After such a statement, wherein ex-Attorney General Gushing very clearly recognizes 
 the right of this government, as also of England, to employ martial law as a means of 
 defence in a time of war, whether -.domestic or foreign, he will be as much surprised 
 when he reads the argument of the learned gentleman, wherein he is described as being 
 struck with legal dumbness at the mere mention of proclaiming martial law and its 
 enforcement by the commander of our army in Mexico, as the late secretary of war 
 was startled with even the mention of its title. 
 
 Even some of the reasons given, and certainly the power exercised by the veteran 
 hero himself, would seem to be in direct conflict with the propositions of the learned 
 gentleman. 
 
 The lieutenant-general says he "excludes from his order cases already cognizable by 
 court-martial, and limits it to cases not provided for in the act of Congress establishing 
 rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States." Has not the 
 gentleman who attempts to press General Scott into his service argued and insisted upon 
 it that the commander of the army cannot subject the soldiers under his command to 
 any control or punishment whatever, save that which is provided for in the articles? 
 
 It will not do, in order to sustain the gentleman's hypothesis, to say that these pro- 
 visions of the Constitution, by which he attempts to fetter the power of the people to 
 punish such offences in time of war within the territory of the United States, may be 
 disregarded by an officer of the United States in command of its armies, in the trial and 
 punishment of its soldiers in a foreign war. The law of the United States for the gov- 
 ernment of its own armies follows the flag upon every sea and in every land.
 
 APPENDIX. 337 
 
 The truth is, that the right of the people to proclaim and execute martial law is a 
 necessary incident of war, and this was the right exercised, and rightfully exercised, by 
 Lieutenant-General Scott in Mexico. It was what Earl Grey has justly said was a " fact 
 of necessity," and I may add, an act as clearly authorized as was the act of fighting the 
 enemy when they appeared before him. 
 
 In making this exception, the lieutenant-general followed the rule recognized by the 
 American authorities on military law, in which it is declared that " many crimes com- 
 mitted even by military officers, enlisted men, or camp-retainers, cannot be tried under 
 the rules and articles of war. Military commissions must be resorted to for such cases, 
 and these commissions should be ordered by the same authority, be constituted in a 
 similar manner, and their proceedings be conducted according to the same general rules 
 as general courts-martial." Benet, 15. 
 
 There remain for me to notice, at present, two other points in this extraordinary 
 speech : first, that martial law does not warrant a military commission for the trial of 
 military offences that is, offences committed in time of war in the interests of the 
 public enemy and by concert and agreement with the enemy; and second, that martial 
 law does not prevail in the United States, and has never been declared by any compe- 
 tent authority. 
 
 It is not necessary, as the gentleman himself has declined to argue the first point, 
 whether martial law authorizes the organization of military commissions by order of the 
 commander-in-chief to try such offences, that I should say more than that the authority 
 just cited by me shows that such commissions are authorized under martial law, and are 
 created by the commander for the trial of all such offences when their punishment by 
 court-martial is not provided for by the express statute law of the country. 
 
 The second point, that martial law has not been declared by any competent author- 
 ity, is an arraignment of the late murdered President of the United States for his 
 proclamation of September 24, 1862, declaring martial law throughout the United States, 
 and of which, in Lawrence's edition of Wheaton on International Law, p. 522, it is 
 said, " Whatever may be the inference to be deduced either from constitutional or inter- 
 national law, or from the usages of European governments, as to the legitimate deposi- 
 tory of the power of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the virtual abrogation of the 
 judiciary in cases affecting individual liberty, and the establishment as matter of fact in 
 the United States, by the Executive alone, of martial law, not merely in the insurrec- 
 tionary districts or in cases of military occupancy, but throughout the entire Union, and 
 not temporarily, but as an institution as permanent as the insurrection on which it pro- 
 fesses to be based, and capable on the same principle of being revived in all cases of 
 foreign as well as civil war, are placed beyond question by the President's proclamation 
 of September 24, 1862." That proclamation is as follows: 
 
 "Bv THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 "A PROCLAMATION. 
 
 " Whereas it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers, but also 
 portions of the militia of the states, by a draft, in order to suppress the insurrection 
 existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the 
 ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort 
 in various ways to the insurrection: Now, therefore, be it ordered that, during the 
 existing insurrection, and 'as a necessary means for suppressing the same, all rebels and 
 insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discour- 
 aging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice
 
 338 APPENDIX. 
 
 affording aid and comfort to rebels, against the authority of the United States, shall be 
 subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military 
 commission. 
 
 " Second. That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons 
 arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any 
 fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement, by any military 
 authority or by the sentence of any court-martial or military commission. 
 
 " In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United 
 States to be affixed. 
 
 " Done at the city of Washington, this 24th day of September, A.D. 1862, and of 
 the independence of the United States the eighty-seventh. 
 
 "ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 
 " By the President: 
 
 " WILLIAM H. SEWARD, 
 
 " Secretary of State." 
 
 This proclamation is duly certified from the War Department to be in full force and 
 not revoked, and is evidence of record in this case ; and but a few days since a procla- 
 mation of the President, of which this court will take notice, declares that the same 
 remains in full force. 
 
 It has been said by another of the counsel for the accused (Mr. Stone) in his argu- 
 ment, that, admitting its validity, the proclamation ceases to have effect with the insur- 
 rection, and is terminated by it. It is true the proclamation of martial law only 
 continues during the insurrection; but inasmuch as the question of the existence of 
 an insurrection is a political question, the decision of which belongs exclusively to the 
 political department of the government, that department alone can declare its existence, 
 and that department alone can declare its termination, and by the action of the political 
 department of the government every judicial tribunal in the land is concluded and 
 bound. That question has been settled for fifty years in this country by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States: First, in the case of Brown vs. The United States 
 (8 Cranch); also in the prize cases (2 Black, 641). Nothing more, therefore, need 
 be said upon this question of an existing insurrection than this: The political depart- 
 ment of the government has heretofore proclaimed an insurrection; that department has 
 not yet declared the insurrection ended, and the event on the I4th of April, which 
 robbed the people of their chosen Executive, and clothed this land in mourning, bore 
 sad but overwhelming witness to the fact that the rebellion is not ended. The fact of 
 the insurrection is not an open question to be tried or settled by parol, either in a mili- 
 tary tribunal or in a civil court. 
 
 The declaration of the learned gentleman who opened the defence (Mr. Johnson), 
 that martial law has never been declared by any competent authority, as I have already 
 said, arraigns Mr. Lincoln for a usurpation of power. Does the gentleman mean to say 
 that, until Congress authorizes it, the President cannot proclaim and enforce martial law 
 in the suppression of armed and organized rebellion ? Or does he only affirm that this 
 act of the late President is a usurpation? 
 
 The proclamation of martial law in 1862 a usurpation! though it armed the people 
 in that dark hour of trial with the means of defence against traitorous and secret enemies 
 in every state and district of the country; though by its use some of the guilty were 
 brought to swift and just judgment, and others deterred from crime or driven to flight; 
 though by this means the innocent and defenceless were protected; though by this 
 means the city of the gentleman's residence was saved from the violence and pillage of 
 the mob and the torch of the incendiary. But, says the gentleman, it was a usurpation, 
 forbidden by the laws of the land !
 
 APPENDIX. 339 
 
 The same was said of the proclamations of blockade issued April 19 and 27, 1861, 
 which declared a blockade of the ports of the insurgent states, and that all vessels 
 violating the same were subjects of capture, and, together with the cargo, to be con- 
 demned as prize. Inasmuch as Congress had not then recognized the fact of civil war, 
 these proclamations were denounced as void. The Supreme Court decided otherwise, 
 and affirmed the power of the Executive thus to subject property on the seas to seizure 
 and condemnation. I read from that decision: 
 
 "The Constitution confers upon the President the whole executive power, he is 
 bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; he is Commander-in-Chief of 
 the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when 
 called into the actual service of the United States. . . . Whether the President, in 
 fulfilling his duties as Commander-in-Chief in suppressing an insurrection, has met with 
 such armed hostile resistance and a civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel 
 him to accord to them the character of belligerents, is a question to be decided by him, 
 and this court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of 
 the government to which this power was intrusted. He must determine what degree of 
 force the crisis demands. 
 
 "The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the court 
 that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure 
 under the circumstances peculiar to the case." (2 Black, 670.) 
 
 It has been solemnly ruled by the same tribunal, in an earlier case, " that the power 
 is confided to the Executive of the Union to determine when it is necessary to call out 
 the militia of the states to repel invasion," as follows: " That he is necessarily consti- 
 tuted the judge of the existence of the exigency in the first instance, and is bound to act 
 according to his belief of the facts. If he does so act, and decides to call forth the 
 militia, his orders for this purpose are in strict conformity with the provisions of the 
 law; and it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that every act done by a 
 subordinate officer in obedience to such orders, is equally justifiable. The law con- 
 templates that, under such circumstances, orders shall be given to carry the power into 
 effect; and it cannot therefore be a correct inference that any other person has a just 
 right to disobey them. The law does not provide for any appeal from the judgment 
 of the President, or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision, and in 
 effect defeat it. Whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be 
 exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule' of construc- 
 tion that the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of 
 those facts." (12 Wheaton, 31.) 
 
 In the light of these decisions, it must be clear to every mind that the question of 
 the existence of an insurrection, and the necessity of calling into requisition for its 
 suppression both the militia of the states and the army and navy of the United States, 
 and of proclaiming martial law, which is an essential condition of war, whether foreign 
 or domestic, must rest with the officer of the government who is charged by the express 
 terms of the Constitution with the performance of this great duty for the common 
 defence and the execution of the laws of the Union. 
 
 But it is further insisted by the gentleman in this argument, that Congress has not 
 authorized the establishment of military commissions, which are essential to the judicial 
 administration of martial law and the punishment of crimes committed during the 
 existence of a civil war, and especially that such commissions are not so authorized to 
 try persons other than those in the military or naval service of the United States, or in
 
 34O APPENDIX. 
 
 the militia of the several States, when in the actual service of the United States. The 
 gentleman's argument assuredly destroys itself, for he insists that the Congress, as the 
 legislative department of the government, can pass no law which, either in peace or war, 
 can constitutionally subject any citizen not in the land or naval forces to trial for crime 
 before a military tribunal, or otherwise than by a jury in the civil courts. 
 
 Why does the learned gentleman now tell us that Congress has not authorized this to 
 be done, after declaring just as stoutly that by the fifth and sixth amendments to the 
 Constitution no such military tribunals can be established for the trial of any person not 
 in the military or naval service of the United States, or in the militia when in actual 
 service, for the commission of any crime whatever in time cff war or insurrection? It 
 ought to have occurred to the gentleman when commenting upon the exception in the 
 fifth article of the Constitution, that there was a reason for it very different from that 
 which he saw fit to assign, and that reason manifestly upon the face of the Constitution 
 itself, was, that by the eighth section of the first article, it is expressly provided that 
 Congress shall have power to make rules for the government of the land and naval 
 forces, and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for 
 governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, 
 and that, inasmuch as military discipline and order are as essential in an army in time of 
 peace as in time of war, if the Constitution would leave this power to Congress in 
 peace, it must make the exception, so that rules and regulations for the government of 
 the army and navy should be operative in time of peace as well as in time of war; 
 because the provisions of the Constitution give the right of trial by jury IN TIME OF 
 PEACE, in all criminal prosecutions by indictment, in terms embracing every human 
 being that may be held to answer for crime in the United States; and therefore if the 
 eighth section of the first article was to remain in full force IN TIME OF PEACE, the 
 exception must be made; and, accordingly, the exception was made. But by the 
 argument we have listened to, this court is told, and the country is told, that IN TIME 
 OF WAR a war which involves in its dread issue the lives and interests of us all the 
 guarantees of the Constitution are in full force for the benefit of those who conspire 
 with the enemy, creep into your camps, murder in cold blood, in the interest of the 
 invader or insurgent, the Commander-in-Chief of your army, and secure to him the slow 
 and weak provisions of the civil law, while the soldier, who may, when overcome by 
 the demands of exhausted nature which cannot be resisted, have slept at his post, is 
 subject to be tried upon the spot by a military tribunal and shot. The argument 
 amounts to this : that as military courts and military trials of civilians in time of war are 
 a usurpation and tyranny, and as soldiers are liable to such arrests and trial, Sergeant 
 Corbett, who shot Booth, should be tried and executed by sentence of a military court; 
 while Booth's co-conspirators and aiders should be saved from any such indignity as a 
 military trial ! I confess that I am too dull to comprehend the logic, the reason, or the 
 sense of such a conclusion ! If there is any one entitled to this privilege of a civil trial 
 at a remote period, and by a jury of the district, IN TIME OF CIVIL WAR, when the 
 foundations of the republic are rocking beneath the earthquake tread of armed rebellion, 
 that man is the defender of the republic. It will never do to say, as has been said in 
 this argument, that the soldier is not liable to be tried in time of war by a military 
 tribunal for any other offence than those prescribed in the rules and articles of war. To 
 my mind, nothing can be clearer than that citizen and soldier alike, in time of civil or 
 foreign war, after a proclamation of martial law, are triable by military tribunals for all 
 offences of which they may be guilty, in the interests of, or in concert with the enemy.
 
 APPENDIX. 341 
 
 These provisions, therefore, of your Constitution for indictment and trial by jury in 
 civil courts of all crimes are, as I shall hereafter show, silent and inoperative in time of 
 war when the public safety requires it. 
 
 The argument to which I have thus been replying, as the court will not fail to 
 perceive, nor that public to which the argument is addressed, is a labored attempt to 
 establish the proposition, that, by the Constitution of the United States, the American 
 people cannot, even in a civil war the greatest the world has ever seen, employ martial 
 law and military tribunals as a means of successfully asserting their authority, preserving 
 their nationality, and securing protection to the lives and property of all, and especially 
 to the persons of those to whom they have committed, officially, the great trust of 
 maintaining the national authority. The gentleman says, with an air of perfect con- 
 fidence, that he denies the jurisdiction of military tribunals for the trial of civilians in 
 time of war, because neither the Constitution nor laws justify, but on the contrary 
 repudiate them, and that all the experience of the past is against it. I might content 
 myself with saying that the practice of all nations is against the gentleman's conclusion. 
 The struggle for our national independence was aided and prosecuted by military 
 tribunals and martial law, as well as by arms. The contest for American nationality 
 began with the establishment, very soon after the firing of the first gun at Lexington on 
 the i gth day of April, 1775, of military tribunals and martial law. On the 3Oth of 
 June, 1775, the Continental Congress provided that "whosoever, belonging to the con- 
 tinental army, shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence 
 to the enemy, either indirectly or directly, shall suffer such punishment as by a court- 
 martial shall be ordered." This was found not sufficient, inasmuch as it did not reach 
 those civilians who, like certain civilians of our day, claim the protection of the civil 
 law in time of war against military arrests and military trials for military crimes. There- 
 fore the same Congress, on the 7th of November, 1775, amended this provision- by 
 striking out the words " belonging to the continental army," and adopting the article as 
 follows: 
 
 " All persons convicted of holding a treacherous correspondence with, or giving 
 intelligence to the enemy, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a general court- 
 martial shall think proper." 
 
 And on the I7th of June, 1776, the Congress added an additional rule 
 
 "That all persons not members of, nor owing allegiance to, any of the United 
 States of America, who should be found lurking as spies in or about the fortifications or 
 encampments of the armies of the United States, or any of them, shall suffer death, 
 according to the law and usage of nations, by the sentence of a court-martial or such 
 other punishment as a court-martial shall direct." 
 
 Comprehensive as was this legislation, embracing as it did soldiers, citizens, and 
 aliens, subjecting all alike to trial for their military tribunals of justice, according to the 
 law and the usage of nations, it was found to be insufficient to meet that most dangerous 
 of all crimes committed in the interests of the enemy by citizens in time of war the 
 crime of conspiring together to assassinate or seize and carry away the soldiers and citi- 
 zens who were loyal to the cause of the country. Therefore, on the 27th of February, 
 1778, the Congress adopted the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That whatever inhabitant of these states shall kill, or seize, or take any loyal 
 citizen or citizens thereof and convey him, her, or them to any place within the power 
 of the enemy, or shall ENTER INTO ANY COMBINATION for such purpose, or attempt to 
 carry the same into execution, or hath assisted or shall assist therein; or shall, by giving
 
 342 APPENDIX. 
 
 intelligence, acting as a guide, or in any manner whatever, aid the enemy in the per- 
 petration thereof, he shall suffer death by the judgment of a court-martial as a traitor, 
 assassin, or spy, if the offence be committed within seventy miles of the headquarters of 
 the grand or other armies of these states where a general officer commands." Jour- 
 nals of Congress, vol. ii, pp. 459, 460. 
 
 So stood the law until the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Every 
 well-informed man knows that at the time of the passage of these acts the courts of 
 justice, having cognizance of all crimes against persons, were open in many of the 
 states, and that by their several constitutions and charters, which were then the supreme 
 law for the punishment of crimes committed within their respective territorial limits, no 
 man was liable to conviction but by the verdict of a jury. Take, for example, the pro- 
 visions of the constitution of North Carolina, adopted on the loth of November, 1776, 
 and in full force at the time of the passage of the last resolution by Congress above 
 cited, which provisions are as follows : 
 
 "That no freeman shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by indictment, 
 presentment or impeachment." 
 
 " That no freeman shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of 
 a jury of good and lawful men in open court, as heretofore used." 
 
 This was the law in 1778 in all the states, and the provision for a trial by jury every 
 one knows meant a jury of twelve men, impanelled and qualified to try the issue in a 
 civil court. The conclusion is not to be avoided, that these enactments of the Congress 
 under the Confederation set aside the trial by jury within the several states, and expressly 
 provided for the trial by court-martial of "any of the inhabitants" who, during the 
 revolution, might, contrary to the provisions of said law, and in aid of the public 
 enemy, give them intelligence, or kill any loyal citizens of the United States, or enter 
 into any combination to kill or carry them away. How comes it, if the argument of 
 the counsel be true, that this enactment was passed by the Congress of 1778, when the 
 constitutions of the several states at that day as fully guaranteed trial by jury to every 
 person held to answer for a crjme as does the Constitution of the United States at this 
 hour? Notwithstanding this fact, I have yet to learn that any loyal man ever challenged, 
 during all the period of our conflict for independence and nationality, the validity of 
 that law for the trial, for military offences, by military tribunals, of all offenders, as the 
 law, not of peace, but of war, and absolutely essential to the prosecution of war. I 
 may be pardoned for saying that it is the accepted common law of nations, that mar- 
 tial law is, at all times and everywhere, essential to the successful prosecution of war, 
 whether it be a civil or a foreign war. The validity of these acts of the Continental and 
 Confederate Congress I know was challenged, but only by men charged with the guilt 
 of their country's blood. 
 
 Washington, the peerless, the stainless, and the just, with whom God walked 
 through the night of that great trial, enforced this just and wise enactment upon all 
 occasions. On the 3<Dth of September, 1780, Joshua H. Smith, by the order of General 
 Washington, was put upon his trial before a court-martial, convened in the State of 
 New York, on the charge of there aiding and assisting Benedict Arnold, in a combina- 
 tion with the enemy, to take, kill, and seize such loyal citizens or soldiers of the United 
 States as were in garrison at West Point. Smith objected to the jurisdiction, averring 
 that he was a private citizen, not in the military or naval service, and therefore was only 
 amenable to the civil authority of the State, whose constitution had guaranteed the 
 right of trial by jury to all persons held to answer for crime. (" Chandler's Criminal
 
 APPENDIX. 343 
 
 Trials," vol. 2, p. 187.) The constitution of New York then in force had so provided; 
 but, notwithstanding that, the court overruled the plea, held him to answer, and tried 
 him. I repeat, that when Smith was thus tried by court-martial the constitution of 
 New York as fully guaranteed trial by jury in the civil courts to all civilians charged and 
 held to answer for crimes within the limits of that State as does the Constitution of the 
 United States guarantee such trial within the limits of the District of Columbia. By the 
 second of the Articles of Confederation each State retained " its sovereignty," and every 
 power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States in Congress 
 assembled. By those articles there was no express delegation of judicial power; 
 therefore the States retained it fully. 
 
 If the military courts, constituted by the commander of the army of the United 
 States under the Confederation, who was appointed only by a resolution of the 
 Congress, without any express grant of power to authorize it his office not being 
 created by the act of the people in their fundamental law had jurisdiction in every 
 State to try and put to death "any inhabitant" thereof who should kill any loyal 
 citizen or enter into "any combination" for any such purpose therein in time of war, 
 notwithstanding the provisions of the constitution and laws of such States, how can any 
 man conceive that under the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law 
 over every State, anything in the constitution and laws of such State to the contrary 
 notwithstanding, and the supreme law over every territory of the republic as well, the 
 Commander-in-Chief of the army of the United States, who is made such by the Consti- 
 tution, and by its supreme authority clothed with the power and charged with the duty 
 of directing and controlling the 'whole military power of the United States in time of 
 rebellion or invasion, has not that authority? 
 
 I need not remind the court that one of the marked differences between the Articles 
 of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States was, that under the Confed- 
 eration the Congress was the sole depository of all federal power. The Congress of 
 the Confederation, said Madison, held " the command of the army." (Fed., No. 38.) 
 Has the Constitution, which was ordained by the people the better " to insure domestic 
 tranquillity and to provide for the common defence," so fettered the great power of 
 self-defence against armed insurrection or invasion that martial law, so essential in war, 
 is forbidden by that great instrument? I will yield to no man in reverence for or 
 obedience to the Constitution of my country, esteeming it, as I do, a new evangel to the 
 nations, embodying the democracy of the New Testament the absolute equality of all 
 men before the law, in respect of those rights of human nature which are the gift of 
 God, and therefore as universal as the material structure of man. Can it be that this 
 Constitution of ours, so divine in its spirit of justice, so beneficent in its results, so full 
 of wisdom and goodness and truth, under which we became one people, a great and 
 powerful nationality, has in terms or by implication denied to this people the power to 
 crush armed rebellion by war, and to arrest and punish, during the existence of such 
 rebellion, according to the laws of war and the usages of nations, secret conspirators 
 who aid and abet the public enemy? 
 
 Here is a conspiracy, organized and prosecuted by armed traitors and hired assassins, 
 receiving the moral support of thousands in every State and district, who pronounced 
 the war for the Union a failure, and your now murdered but immortal Commander-in- 
 Chief a tyrant; the object of which conspiracy, as the testimony shows, was to aid the 
 tottering rebellion which struck at the nation's life. It is in evidence that Davis, 
 Thompson, and others, chiefs in this rebellion, in aid of the same, agreed and conspired
 
 344 APPENDIX. 
 
 with others to poison the fountains of water which supply your commercial metropolis, 
 and thereby murder its inhabitants; to secretly deposit in the habitations of the people 
 and in the ships in your harbors inflammable materials, and thereby destroy them by 
 fire; to murder by the slow and consuming torture of famine your soldiers, captive in 
 their hands; to import pestilence in infected clothes to be distributed in your capital 
 and camps, and thereby murder the surviving heroes and defender of the republic, who, 
 standing by the holy graves of your unreturning brave, proudly and defiantly challenge 
 to honorable combat and open battle all public enemies, that their country may live; 
 and finally, to crown this horrid catalogue of crime, this sum of all human atrocities, 
 conspired, as charged upon your record, with the accused and John Wilkes Booth and 
 John H. Surratt, to kill and murder in your capital the executive officers of your gov- 
 ernment and the commander of your armies. When this conspiracy, entered into by 
 these traitors, is revealed by its attempted execution, and the foul and brutal murder of 
 your President in the capital, you are told that it is unconstitutional, in order to arrest 
 the further execution of the conspiracy, to interpose the military power of this govern- 
 ment for the arrest, without civil process, of any of the parties thereto, and for their 
 trial by a military tribunal of justice. If any such rule had obtained during our struggle 
 for independence we never would have been a nation. If any such rule had been 
 adopted and acted upon now, during the fierce struggle of the past four years no man 
 can say that our nationality would have thus long survived. 
 
 The whole people of the United States by their Constitution have created the office 
 of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, and 
 have vested, by the terms of that Constitution, in the person of the President and Com- 
 mander-in-Chief, the power to enforce the execution of the laws, and preserve, protect, 
 and defend the Constitution. 
 
 The question may well be asked : If, as Commander-in-Chief, the President may not, 
 in time of insurrection or war, proclaim and execute martial law, according to the usages 
 of nations, how he can successfully perform the duties of his office execute the laws, 
 preserve the Constitution, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion? 
 
 Martial law and military tribunals are as essential to the successful prosecution of 
 war as are men and arms and munitions. The Constitution of the United States has 
 vested the power to declare war and raise armies and navies exclusively in the Congress, 
 and the power to prosecute the war and command the army and navy exclusively in the 
 President of the United States. As, under the Confederation, the commander of the 
 army, appointed only by the Congress, was by the resolution of that Congress empowered 
 to act as he might think proper for the good and welfare of the ser.vice, subject only to 
 such restraints or orders as the Congress might give, so, under the Constitution, the 
 President is, by the people who ordained that Constitution and declared him Commander- 
 in-Chief of the army and navy, vested with full power to direct and control the army 
 and navy of the United States, and employ all the forces necessary to preserve, protect, 
 and defend the Constitution and execute the laws, as enjoined by his oath and the very 
 letter of the Constitution, subject to no restriction or direction save such as Congress 
 may from time to time prescribe. 
 
 That these powers for the common defence, intrusted by the Constitution exclusively 
 to the Congress and the President, are, in time of civil war or foreign invasion, to be 
 exercised without limitation or restraint, to the extent of the public necessity, and with- 
 out any intervention of the federal judiciary or of State constitutions or State laws, are 
 facts in our history not open to question.
 
 APPENDIX. 345 
 
 The position is not to be answered by saying you make the American Congress 
 thereby omnipotent, and clothe the American Executive with the asserted attribute of 
 hereditary monarchy the king can do no wrong. Let the position be fairly stated 
 that the Congress and President, in war as in peace, are but the agents of the whole 
 people, and that this unlimited power for the common defence against armed rebellion 
 or foreign invasion is but the power of the people intrusted exclusively to the legislative 
 and executive departments as their agents, for any and every abuse of which these 
 agents are directly responsible to the people and the demagogue cry of an omnipo- 
 tent Congress, and an Executive invested with royal prerogatives, vanishes like the 
 baseless fabric of a vision. If the Congress, corruptly or oppressively, or wantonly 
 abuse this great trust, the people, by the irresistible power of the ballot, hurl them from 
 place. If the President so abuse the trust, the people by their Congress withhold sup- 
 plies, or by impeachment transfer the trust to better hands, strip him of the franchises 
 of citizenship and of office, and declare him forever disqualified to hold any position of 
 honor, trust, or power, under the government of his country. 
 
 I can understand very well why men should tremb.le at the exercise of this great 
 power by a monarch whose person, by the constitution of his realm, is inviolable, but I 
 cannot conceive how any American citizen, who has faith in the capacity of the whole 
 people to govern themselves, should give himself any concern on the subject. Mr. 
 Hallam, the distinguished author of the Constitutional History of England, has said: 
 
 " Kings love to display the divinity with which their flatterers invest them in nothing 
 so much as in the instantaneous execution of their will, and to stand revealed, as it 
 were, in the storm and thunderbolt when their power breaks through the operation of 
 secondary causes and awes a prostate nation without the intervention of law." 
 
 How just are such words when applied to an irresponsible monarch ! how absurd 
 when applied to a whole people, acting through their duly appointed agents, whose will, 
 thus declared, is the supreme law, to awe into submission and peace and obedience, not 
 a prostrate nation, but a prostrate rebellion ! The same great author utters the fact 
 which all history attests, when he says : 
 
 " It has been usual for all governments during actual rebellion to proclaim martial 
 law for the suspension of civil jurisdiction; and this anomaly, I must admit," he adds, 
 " is very far from being less indispensable at such unhappy seasons where the ordinary 
 mode of trial is by jury than where the right of decision resides in the court." Const. 
 Hist., vol. i, ch. 5, p. 326. 
 
 That the power to proclaim martial law and fully or partially suspend the civil juris- 
 diction, federal and state, in time of rebellion or civil war, and punish by military tribu- 
 nals all offences committed in aid of the public enemy, is conferred upon Congress and 
 the Executive, necessarily results from the unlimited grants of power for the common 
 defence to which I have already briefly referred. I may be pardoned for saying that 
 this position is not assumed by me for the purposes of this occasion, but that early in the 
 first year of this great struggle for our national life I proclaimed it as a representative of 
 the people, under the obligation of my oath, and, as I then believed and still believe, 
 upon the authority of the great men who formed and fashioned the wise and majestic 
 fabric of American government. 
 
 Some of the citations which I deemed it my duty at that time to make, and some of 
 which I now reproduce, have, I am pleased to say, found a wider circulation in books 
 that have since been published by others. 
 
 When the Constitution was on trial for its deliverance before the people of the
 
 346 APPENDIX. 
 
 several States, its ratification was opposed on the ground that it conferred upon Congress 
 and the Executive unlimited power for the common defence. To all such objectors 
 and they were numerous in every State that great man, Alexander Hamilton, whose 
 words will live as long as our language lives, speaking to the listening people of all the 
 States and urging them not to reject that matchless instrument which bore the name of 
 Washington, said : 
 
 ' ' The authorities essential to the care of the common defence are these : To raise 
 armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to. 
 direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist 
 WITHOUT LIMITATION; because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and vari- 
 ety of national exigencies, and the correspondent extent and variety of the means which 
 may be necessary to satisfy them. 
 
 "The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite; and for this 
 reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care 
 of it is committed. . . . This power ought to be under the direction of the same 
 councils which are appointed to preside over the common defence. ... It must be 
 admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority 
 which is to provide for the defence and protection of the community in any manner 
 essential to its efficacy; that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or 
 support of the national forces." 
 
 He adds the further remark: "This is one of those truths which, to a correct and 
 unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but 
 cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as 
 they are universal the means ought to be proportioned to the end; the persons from 
 whose agency the attainment of any end is expected ought to possess the means by 
 which it is to be attained." Federalist, No. 23. 
 
 In the same great contest for the adoption of the Constitution, Madison, sometimes 
 called the " Father of the Constitution," said: 
 
 " Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the 
 negative. ... Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? 
 . . . It is involved in the power of self-defence. . . . With what color of propri- 
 ety could the force necessary for defence be limited by those who cannot limit the force 
 of offence? . . . The means of security can only be regulated by the means and 
 the danger of attack. . . . It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the 
 impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain, because it plants in the Consti- 
 tution itself necessary usurpations of power." Federalist, No. 41. 
 
 With this construction, proclaimed both by the advocates and opponents of its rati- 
 fication, the Constitution of the United States was accepted and adopted, and that con- 
 struction has been followed and acted upon by every department of the government to 
 this day. 
 
 It was as well understood then in theory as it has since been illustrated in practice, 
 that the judicial power, both federal and State, had no voice and could exercise no 
 authority in the conduct and prosecution of a war, except in subordination to the politi- 
 cal department of the government. The Constitution contains the significant provision, 
 " The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases 
 of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." 
 
 What was this but a declaration, that in time of rebellion or invasion the public 
 safety is the highest law? that so far as necessary the civil courts (of which the Com- 
 mander-in-Chief, under the direction of Congress, shall be the sole judge) must be 
 silent, and the rights of each citizen, as secured in time of peace, must yield to the 
 wants, interests, and necessities of the nation? Yet we have been gravely told by the
 
 APPENDIX. 347 
 
 gentleman in his argument, that the maxim, salus populi supremo, est lex, is but fit for 
 a tyrant's use. Those grand men, whom God taught to build the fabric of empire, 
 thought otherwise when they put that maxim into the Constitution of their country. 
 It is very clear that the Constitution recognizes the great principle which underlies the 
 structure of society and of all civil government; that no man lives for himself alone, 
 but each for all; that, if need be, some must die that the State may live, because at 
 best the individual is but for to-day, while the commonwealth is for all time. I agree 
 with the gentleman in the maxim which he borrows from Aristotle, " Let the public 
 weal be under the protection of the law "; but I claim that in war, as in peace, by the 
 very terms of the Constitution of the country, the public safety is under the protection 
 of the law; that the Constitution itself has provided for the declaration of war for 
 the common defense, to suppress rebellion, to repel invasion, and, by express terms, 
 has declared that whatever is necessary to make the prosecution of the war successful, 
 may be done, and ought to be done, and is therefore constitutionally lawful. 
 
 Who will dare to say that in time of civil war " no person shall be deprived of 
 life, liberty, and property without due process of law"? This is a provision of your 
 Constitution than which there is none more just or sacred in it; it is, however, only 
 the law of peace, not of war. In peace, that wise provision of the Constitution must 
 be, and is, enforced by the civil courts; in war it must be, and is, to a great extent, 
 inoperative and disregarded. The thousands slain by your armies in battle were 
 deprived of life "without due process of law." All spies arrested, convicted, and 
 executed by your military tribunals in time of war are deprived of liberty and life 
 " without due process of law " all enemies captured and held as prisoners of war are 
 deprived of liberty "without due process of law"; all owners whose property is 
 forcibly seized and appropriated in war are deprived of their property "without due 
 process of law." The Constitution recognizes the principle of common law, that every 
 man's house is his castle; that his home, the shelter of his wife and children, is his 
 most sacred possession; and has therefore specially provided, " that no soldier shall 
 in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of its owner, nor in 
 time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law [III Amend.]; thereby declar- 
 ing that, in time of war, Congress may by law authorize, as it has done, that without 
 the consent and against the consent of the owner, the soldier may be quartered in any 
 man's house and upon any man's hearth. What I have said illustrates the proposition, 
 that in time of war the civil tribunals of justice are wholly or partially silent, as the 
 public safety may require; that the limitations and provisions of the Constitution in 
 favor of life, liberty, and property are therefore wholly or partially suspended. In 
 this I am sustained by an authority second to none with intelligent American citizens. 
 Mr. John Quincy Adams, than whom a purer man or a wiser statesman never ascended 
 the chair of the chief magistracy in America, said in his place in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, in 1836, that: 
 
 " In the authority given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States to 
 declare war, all the powers incident to war are by necessary implication conferred upon 
 the government of the United States. Now the powers incidental to war are derived, 
 not from their internal municipal source, but from the laws and usages of nations. 
 There are, then, in the authority of Congress and the Executive, two classes of powers 
 altogether different in their nature and often incompatible with each other the war 
 power and the peace power. The peace power is limited by regulations and restricted 
 by provisions prescribed within the Constitution itself. The war power is limited only 
 by the laws and usage of nations. This power is tremendous; it is strictly constitu- 
 tional, but it breaks down every barrier so anxiously erected for the protection of lib- 
 erty, of property, and of life."
 
 348 APPENDIX. 
 
 If this be so, how can there be trial by jury for military offenses in time of civil 
 war? If you cannot, and do not, try the armed enemy before you shoot him, or the 
 captured enemy before you imprison him, why should you be held to open the civil 
 courts and try the spy, the conspirator, and the assassin, in the secret service of the 
 public enemy, by jury, before you convict and punish him? Why not clamor against 
 holding imprisoned the captured armed rebels, deprived of their liberty without due 
 process of law? Are they not citizens? Why not clamor against slaying for their 
 crime of treason, which is cognizable in the civil courts, by your rifled ordnance and 
 the leaden hail of your musketry in battle, these public enemies, without trial by jury? 
 Are they not citizens? Why is the clamor confined exclusively to the trial by military 
 tribunals of justice of traitorous spies, traitorous conspirators, and assassins hired to do 
 secretly what the armed rebel attempts to do openly murder your nationality by 
 assassinating its defenders and its executive officers? Nothing can be clearer than that 
 the rebel captured prisoner, being a citizen of the republic, is as much entitled to trial 
 by jury before he is committed to prison, as the spy, or the aider and abetter of the 
 treason by conspiracy and assassination, being a citizen, is entitled to such trial by jury, 
 before he is subjected to the just punishment of the law for his great crime. I think 
 that in time of war the remark of Montesquieu, touching the civil judiciary is true : 
 that "it is next to nothing." Hamilton well said, "The Executive holds the sword of 
 the community; the judiciary has no direction of the strength of society; it has neither 
 force nor will; it has judgment alone, and is dependent for the execution of that upon 
 the arm of the Executive." The people of these States so understood the Constitution 
 and adopted it, and intended thereby, without limitation or restraint, to empower their 
 Congress and Executive to authorize by law, and execute by force, whatever the public 
 safety might require to suppress rebellion or repel invasion. 
 
 Notwithstanding all that has been said by the counsel for the accused to the con- 
 trary, the Constitution has received this construction from the day of its adoption to 
 this hour. The Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that the 
 Constitution has conferred upon the government authority to employ all the means 
 necessary to the faithful execution of all the powers which that Constitution enjoins 
 upon the government of the United States, and upon every department and every 
 officer thereof. Speaking of that provision of the Constitution which provides that 
 "Congress shall have power to make all laws that may be necessary and proper to 
 carry into effect all powers granted to the government of the United States, or to any 
 department or officer thereof," Chief Justice Marshall, in his great decision in the case 
 of McCulloch vs. State of Maryland, says : 
 
 "The powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution, and 
 the government, in all sound reason and fair interpretation, must have the choice of 
 the means which it deems the most convenient and appropriate to the execution of the 
 power. . . . The powers of the government were given for the welfare of the 
 nation; they were intended to endure for ages to come, and to be adapted to the vari- 
 ous crises in human affairs. To prescribe the specific means by which government 
 should, in all future time, execute its power, and to confine the choice of means to 
 such narrow limits as should not leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which 
 might be appropriate and conducive to the end, would be most unwise and pernicious." 
 4 Wheaton, 420. 
 
 Words fitly spoken ! which illAstrated at the time of their utterance the wisdom of 
 the Constitution in providing this general grant of power to meet every possible exi- 
 gency which the fortunes of war might cast upon the country, and the wisdom of
 
 APPENDIX. 349 
 
 which words, in turn, has been illustrated to-day by the gigantic and triumphant strug- 
 gle of the people during the last four years for the supremacy of the Constitution, and 
 in exact accordance with its provisions. In the light of these wonderful events, the 
 words of Pinckney, uttered when the illustrious Chief Justice had concluded this opin- 
 ion, "The Constitution of my country is immortal! " seem to have become words of 
 prophecy. Has not this great tribunal, through the chief of all its judges, by this 
 luminous and profound reasoning, declared that the government may by law authorize 
 the Executive to employ, in the prosecution of war, the ordinary means, and all the 
 means necessary and adapted to the end? And in the other decision before referred 
 to, in the 8th of Cranch, arising during the late war with Great Britain, Mr. Justice 
 Story said : 
 
 " When the legislative authority, to whom the right to declare war is confided, has 
 declared war in its most unlimited manner, the executive authority, to whom the execu- 
 tion of the war is confided, is bound to carry it into effect. He has a discretion vested 
 in him as to the manner and extent, but he cannot lawfully transcend the rules of 
 warfare established among civilized nations. He cannot lawfully exercise powers or 
 authorize proceedings which the civilized world repudiates and disclaims. The sov- 
 ereignty, as to declaring war and limiting its effects, rests with the legislature. The 
 sovereignty as to its execution rests with the President. Brown vs. United States, 
 8 Cranch, 153. 
 
 Has the Congress, to whom is committed the sovereignty of the whole people to 
 declare war, by legislation restricted the President, or attempted to restrict him, in the 
 prosecution of this war for the Union, from exercising all the " powers " and adopting 
 all the " proceedings" usually approved and employed by the civilized world? He 
 would, in my judgment, be a bold man who asserted that Congress has so legis- 
 lated; and the Congress which should by law fetter the executive arm when raised for 
 the common defense would, in my opinion, be false to their oath. That Congress may 
 prescribe rules for the government of the army and navy and the militia when in actual 
 service, by articles of war, is an express grant of power in the Constitution which Con- 
 gress has rightfully exercised, and which the Executive must and does obey. That 
 Congress may aid the Executive by legislation in the prosecution of a war, civil or 
 foreign, is admitted. That Congress may restrain the Executive, and arraign, try, and 
 condemn him for wantonly abusing the great trust, is expressly declared in the Consti- 
 tution. That Congress shall pass all laws NECESSARY to enable the Executive to exe- 
 cute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion, is one of the 
 express requirements of the Constitution, for the performance of which the Congress 
 is bound by an oath. 
 
 What was the legislation of Congress when treason fired its first gun on Sumter? 
 By the act of 1795 it is provided that whenever the laws of the United States shall be 
 opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State, by combinations too power- 
 ful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceeding or by the powers 
 vested in the marshals, it shall be lawful by this act for the President to call forth the 
 militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress 
 such combinations and to cause the laws to be executed (ist Statutes at Large, 424). 
 By the act of 1807 it is provided that in case of insurrection or obstruction to the laws, 
 either of the United States or of any individual State or territory, where it is lawful 
 for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of sup- 
 pressing such insurrection or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be law-
 
 350 APPENDIX. 
 
 ful for him to employ for such purpose such part of the land or naval forces of the 
 United States as shall be judged necessary (ad Statutes at Large, 443). 
 
 Can any one doubt that by these acts the President is clothed with full power to 
 determine whether armed insurrection exists in any State or territory of the Union; 
 and if so, to make war upon it with all the force he may deem necessary or be able to 
 command? By the simple exercise of this great power it necessarily results that he 
 may, in the prosecution of the war for the suppression of such insurrection, suspend 
 as far as may be necessary the civil administration of justice by substituting in its stead 
 martial law, which is simply the common law of war. If in such a moment the Pres- 
 ident may make no arrests without civil warrant, and may inflict no violence or penal- 
 ties on persons (as is claimed here for the accused), without first obtaining the verdict 
 of juries and the judgment of civil courts, then is this legislation a mockery, and the 
 Constitution, which not only authorized but enjoined its enactment, but a glittering 
 generality and a splendid bauble. Happily, the Supreme Court has settled all contro- 
 versy on this question. In speaking of the Rhode Island insurrection, the court say: 
 
 "The Constitution of the United States, as far as it has provided for an emergency 
 of this kind and authorized the general government to interfere in the domestic con- 
 cerns of a State, has treated the subject as political in its nature and placed the power 
 in the hands of that department." . . . "By the act of 1795 the power of decid- 
 ing whether the exigency has arisen upon which the government of the United States 
 is bound to interfere is given to the President." 
 
 The court add : 
 
 "When the President has acted and called out the militia, is a circuit court of the 
 United States authorized to inquire whether his decision was right ? If it could, then 
 it would become the duty of the court, provided it came to the conclusion that the 
 President had decided incorrectly, to discharge those who were arrested or detained by 
 the troops in the service of the United States." . . . "If the judicial power 
 extends so far, the guarantee contained in the Constitution of the United States is a 
 guarantee of anarchy and not of order." ..." Yet if this right does not reside 
 in the courts when the conflict is raging, if the judicial power is at that time bound to 
 follow the decision of the political, it must be equally bound when the contest is over. 
 It cannot, when peace is restored, punish as offenses and crimes the acts which it 
 before recognized and was bound to recognize as lawful." Luther vs. Borden, 7 
 Howard, 42, 43. 
 
 If this be law, what becomes of the volunteer advice of the volunteer counsel, by 
 him given without money and without price, to this court, of their responsibility 
 their personal responsibility, for obeying the orders of the President of the United 
 States in trying persons accused of the murder of the Chief Magistrate and Com- 
 mander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States in time of rebellion, and 
 in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into with the public enemy? I may be pardoned 
 for asking the attention of the court to a further citation from this important decision, 
 in which the court say, the employment of military power to put down an armed insur- 
 rection "is essential to the existence of every government, and is as necessary to the 
 States of this Union as to any other government; and if the government of the State 
 deem the armed opposition so formidable as to require the use of military force and 
 the declaration of MARTIAL LAW, we see no ground upon which this court can question 
 its authority" (//>/</). This decision in terms declared that under the act of 1795 
 the President had power to decide and did decide the question so as to exclude further 
 inquiry whether the State government which thus employed force and proclaimed 
 martial law was the government of the State, and therefore was permitted to act. If
 
 APPENDIX. 351 
 
 a State may do this to put down armed insurrection, may not the federal government 
 as well? The reason of the man who doubts it may justly lie questioned. I but quote 
 the language of that tribunal, in another case before cited, when I say the Constitution 
 confers upon the President the whole executive power. 
 
 We have seen that the proclamation of blockade made by the President was 
 affirmed by the Supreme Court as a lawful and valid act, although its direct effect was 
 to dispose of the property of whoever violated it, whether citizen or stranger. It is 
 difficult to perceive what course of reasoning can be adopted, in the light of that 
 decision, which will justify any man in saying that the President had not the like 
 power to proclaim martial law in time of insurrection against the United States, and ta 
 establish, according to the customs of war among civilized nations, military tribunals 
 of justice for its enforcement and for the punishment of all crimes committed in the 
 interests of the public enemy. 
 
 These acts of the President have, however, all been legalized by the subsequent 
 legislation of Congress, although the Supreme Court decided, in relation to the procla- 
 mation of blockade, that no such legislation was necessary. By the act of August 6 t 
 1861, ch. 63, sec. 3, it is enacted that 
 
 "All the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, 
 after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the army and navy of the United States, and 
 calling out, or relating to, the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved 
 in all respects, legalized, and made valid to the same extent and with the same effect 
 as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direc- 
 ion of the Congress of the United States." 12 Statutes at Large, 326. 
 
 This act legalized, if any such legalization was necessary, all that the President had 
 done from the day of his inauguration to that hour, in the prosecution of the war for 
 the Union. He had suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and resisted 
 its execution when issued by the Chief Justice of the United States; he had called out 
 and accepted the services of a large body of volunteers for a period not previously 
 authorized by law; he had declared a blockade of the Southern ports; he had declared 
 the Southern States in insurrection; he had ordered the armies to invade them and 
 suppress it; thus exercising, ih accordance with the laws of war, power over the life, 
 the liberty, and the property of the citizens. Congress ratified it and affirmed it. 
 
 In like manner and by subsequent legislation did the Congress ratify and affirm the 
 proclamation of martial law of September 25, 1862. That proclamation, as the court 
 will have observed, declares that during the existing insurrection all rebels and insur- 
 gents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons guilty of any 
 disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to the rebels against the authority of the 
 United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by 
 courts-martial or military commission ; and second, that the writ of habeas corpus is 
 suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the 
 rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, etc., by any military authority, or by the 
 sentence of any court-martial or military commission. 
 
 One would suppose that it needed no argument to satisfy an intelligent and patriotic 
 citizen of the United States that, by the ruling of the Supreme Court cited, so much of 
 this proclamation as declares that all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, 
 shall be subject to martial law and be liable to trial and punishment by court-martial or 
 military commission, needed no ratification by Congress. Every step that the President 
 took against rebels and insurgents was taken in pursuance of the rules of war and was
 
 35 2 APPENDIX. 
 
 an exercise of martial law. Who says that he should not deprive them, by the author- 
 ity of this law, of life and liberty? Are the aiders and abettors of these insurgents 
 entitled to any higher consideration than the armed insurgents themselves? It is 
 against these that the President proclaimed martial law, and against all others who were 
 guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority 
 of the United States. Against these he suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas 
 corpus ; and these, and only such as these, were by that proclamation-subjected to trial 
 and punishment by court-martial or military commission. 
 
 That the Proclamation covers the offense charged here, no man will, or darej for a 
 moment deny. Was it not a disloyal practice? Was it not aiding and abetting the 
 insurgents and rebels to enter into a conspiracy with them to kill and murder, within 
 your capital and your intrenched camp, the Commander-in-Chief of our army, your 
 Lieutenant General, and the Vice-President, and the Secretary of State, with intent 
 thereby to aid the rebellion, and subvert the Constitution and laws of the United 
 States? But it is said that the President could not establish a court for their trial, and 
 therefore Congress must ratify and affirm this Proclamation. I have said before that 
 such an argument comes with ill grace from the lips of him who declared as solemnly 
 that neither by the Congress nor by the President could either the rebel himself or his 
 aider or abettor be lawfully and constitutionally subjected to trial by any military tribu- 
 nal, whether court-martial or military commission. But the Congress did ratify, in the 
 exercise of the power vested in them, every part of this Proclamation. I have said, 
 upon the authority of the fathers of the Constitution, and of its judicial interpreters, 
 that Congress has power by legislation to aid the Executive in the suppression of rebel- 
 lion, in executing the laws of the Union when resisted by armed insurrection, and in 
 repelling invasion. 
 
 By the act of March 3, 1863, the Congress of the United States, by the first section 
 thereof, declared that during the present rebellion the President of the United States, 
 whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the 
 writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States or any part thereof. 
 By the fourth section of the same act it is declared that any order of the President, or 
 under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, 
 shall be a defense in all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, pend- 
 ing or to be commenced, for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment, made, done, 
 or committed, or acts omitted to be done, under and by virtue of such order. By the 
 fifth section it is provided that, if any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, has been or 
 shall be commenced in any State court against any officer, civil or military, or against 
 any other person, for any arrest or imprisonment made, or other trespasses or wrongs 
 done or committed, or any act omitted to be done at any time during the present rebel- 
 lion, by virture of or under color of any authority derived from or exercised by or 
 under the President of the United States, if the defendant shall, upon appearance in 
 such court, file a petition stating the facts upon affidavit, etc., as aforesaid, for the 
 removal of the cause for trial to the circuit court of the United States, it shall be the 
 duty of the State court, upon his giving security, to proceed no further in the cause or 
 prosecution; thus declaring that all orders of the President, made at any time during 
 the existence of the present rebellion, and all acts done in pursuance thereof, shall be 
 held valid in the courts of justice. Without further inquiry, these provisions of this 
 statute embrace Order 141, which is the proclamation of martial law, and necessarily 
 legalize every act done under it, either before the passage of the act of 1863 or since.
 
 APPENDIX. 353 
 
 Inasmuch as that Proclamation ordered that all rebels, insurgents, their aiders and 
 abettors, and persons guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels 
 against the authority of the United States, at any time during the existing insurrection, 
 should be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by a military com- 
 mission, the sections of the law just cited declaring lawful all acts done in pursuance 
 of such order, including, of course, the trial and punishment by military commission 
 of all such offenders, as directly legalized this order of the President as it is possible 
 for Congress to legalize or authorize any executive act whatever. 12 Statutes at 
 Large, 755, 756. 
 
 But after assuming and declaring with great earnestness in his argument that no 
 person could be tried and convicted for such crimes by any military tribunal, whether a 
 court-martial or a military commission, save those in the land or naval service in time 
 of war, the gentleman makes the extraordinary statement that the creation of a military 
 commission must be authorized by the legislative department, and demands, if there be 
 any such legislation, " let the statute be produced." The statute has been produced. 
 The power so to try, says the gentleman, must be authorized by Congress, when the 
 demand is made for such authority. Does not the gentleman thereby give up his argu- 
 ment, and admit, that if the Congress has so authorized the trial of all aiders and 
 abettors of rebels or insurgents for whatever they do in aid of such rebels and insur- 
 gents during the insurrection, the statute and proceedings under it are lawful and valid? 
 I have already shown that the Congress have so legislated by expressly legalizing Order 
 No. 141, which directed the trial of all rebels, their aiders and abettors, by military 
 commission. Did not Congress expressly legalize this order by declaring that the order 
 shall be a defense in all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, for acts 
 done in pursuance of it? No amount of argument could make this point clearer than 
 the language of the statute itself. But, says the gentleman, if there be a statute author- 
 izing trials by military commission, "let it be produced." 
 
 By the act of March 3, 1863, it is provided in section thirty that in time of war, 
 insurrection, or rebellion, murder and assault with intent to kill, etc., when committed 
 by persons in the military service, shall be punishable by the sentence of a court-martial 
 or military commission, and the punishment of such offenses shall never be less th?n 
 those inflicted by the laws of the State or district in which they may have been com- 
 mitted. By the thirty-eighth section of the same act it is provided that all persons 
 who, in time of war or rebellion against the United States, shall be found lurking or 
 acting as spies in or about the camps, etc., of the United States, or elsewhere, shall be 
 triable by a military commission, and shall, upon conviction, suffer death. Here is a 
 statute which expressly declares that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, who in 
 time of rebellion shall be found acting as spies, shall suffer death upon conviction by a 
 military commission. Why did not the gentleman give "us some argument upon this 
 law? We have seen that it was the existing law of the United States under the Con- 
 federation. Then, and since, men not in the land or naval forces of the United States 
 have suffered death for this offense upon conviction by courts-martial. If it was com- 
 petent for Congress to authorize their trial by courts-martial, it was equally competent 
 for Congress to authorize their trial by military commission, and accordingly they have 
 done so. By the same authority the Congress may extend the jurisdiction of military 
 commissions over all military offenses or crimes committed in time of rebellion or war 
 in aid of the public enemy; and it certainly stands with right reason, that if it were 
 just to subject to death, by the sentence of a military commission, all persons who
 
 354 APPENDIX. 
 
 should be guilty merely of lurking as spies in the interests of the public enemy in time 
 of rebellion, though they obtained no information, though they inflicted no personal 
 injury, but were simply overtaken and detected in the endeavor to obtain intelligence 
 for the enemy, those who enter into conspiracy with the enemy, not only to lurk as 
 spies in your camp, but to lurk there as murderers and assassins, and who, in pursuance 
 of that conspiracy, commit assassination and murder upon the Commander-in-Chief of 
 your army within your camp and in aid of rebellion, should be subject in like manner 
 to trial by military commission. Statutes at Large 12, 736, 737, ch. 8. 
 
 Accordingly, the President having so declared, the Congress, as we have stated, 
 have affirmed that his order was valid, and that all persons acting by authority, and 
 consequently as a court pronouncing such sentence upon the offender as the usage of 
 war requires, are justified by the law of the land. With all respect, permit me to say 
 that the learned gentleman has manifested more acumen and ability in his elaborate 
 argument by what he has omitted to say than by anything which he has said. By the 
 act of July 2, 1864, cap. 215, it is provided that the commanding general in the field, 
 or the commander of the department, as the case may be, shall have power to carry 
 into execution all sentences against guerilla marauders for robbery, arson, burglary, 
 etc., and for violation of the laws and customs of war, as well as sentences against 
 spies, mutineers, deserters, and murderers. 
 
 From the legislation I have cited, it is apparent tha t military commissions are 
 expressly recognized by the law-making power; that they are authorized to try capital 
 offenses against citizens not in the service of the United States, and to pronounce the 
 sentence of death upon them; and that the commander of a department, or the com- 
 manding general in the field, may carry such sentence into execution. But, says the 
 gentleman, grant all this to be so; Congress has not declared in what manner the court 
 shall be constituted. The answer to that objection has already been anticipated in the 
 citation from Benet, wherein it appeared to be the rule of the law martial that in the 
 punishment of all military offenses not provided for by the written law of the land, 
 military commissions are constituted for that purpose by the authority of the command- 
 ing officer or the Commander-in-Chief, as the case may be, who selects the officers of a 
 court-martial; that they are similarly constituted, and their proceedings conducted 
 according to the same general rules. That is a part of the very law martial which the 
 President proclaimed, and which the Congress has legalized. The Proclamation has 
 declared that all such offenders shall be tried by military commissions. The Congress 
 has legalized the same by the act which I have cited; and by every intendment it must 
 be taken that, as martial law is by the Proclamation declared to be the rule by which 
 they shall be tried, the Congress, in affirming the act of the President, simply declared 
 that they should be tried according to the customs of martial law; that the commission 
 should be constituted by the Commander-in-Chief according to the rule of procedure 
 known as martial law; and that the penalties inflicted should be in accordance with the 
 laws of war and the usages of nations. Legislation no more definite than this has been 
 upon your statute-book since the beginning of the century, and has been held by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States valid for the punishment of offenders. 
 
 By the thirty-second article of the act of 23d April, 1800, it is provided that " all 
 crimes committed by persons belonging to the navy which are not specified in the fore- 
 going articles shall be punished according to the laws and customs in such cases at sea." 
 Of this article the Supreme Court of the United States say, that when offences and crimes 
 are not given in terms or by definition, the want of it may be supplied by a compre- 

 
 APPENDIX. 355 
 
 hensive enactment such as the thirty-second article of the rules for the government of the 
 navy; which means that courts-martial have jurisdiction of such crimes as are not 
 specified, but which have been recognized to be crimes and offenses by the usages in 
 the navies of all nations, and that they shall be punished according to the laws and 
 customs of the sea. Dynes vs. Hoover, 20 Howard, 82. 
 
 But it is a fact that must not be omitted in the reply which I make to the gentle- 
 man's argument, that an effort was made by himself and others in the Senate of the 
 United States, on the 3d of March last, to condemn the arrests, imprisonments, etc., 
 made by order of the President of the United States in pursuance of his Proclamation, 
 and to reverse, by the judgment of that body, the law which had been before passed 
 affirming his action, which effort most signally failed. 
 
 Thus we see that the body which by the Constitution, if the President had been 
 guilty of the misdemeanors alleged against him in this argument of the gentleman, 
 would, upon presentation of such charge in legal form against the President, constitute 
 the high court of impeachment for his trial and condemnation, has decided the question 
 in advance, and declared upon the occasion referred to, as they had before declared by 
 solemn enactment, that this order of the President declaring martial law and the pun- 
 ishment of all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, by military commission, 
 should be enforced during the insurrection, as the law of the land, and that the 
 offenders should be tried, as directed, by military commission. It may be said that this 
 subsequent legislation of Congress, ratifying and affirming what had been done by the 
 President, can have no validity. Of course it cannot if neither the Congress nor the 
 Executive can authorize the proclamation and enforcement of martial law in the sup- 
 pression of rebellion for the punishment of all persons committing military offenses in 
 aid of that' rebellion. Assuming, however, as the gentleman seemed to assume, by 
 asking for the legislation of Congress, that there is such power in Congress, the 
 Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly affirmed that such ratification is valid. 
 2 Black, 671. 
 
 The gentleman's argument is full of citations of English precedent. There is a late 
 English precedent bearing upon this point the power of the legislature, by subse- 
 quent enactment, to legalize executive orders, arrests, and imprisonment of citizens 
 that I beg leave to commend to his consideration. I refer to the statute of II and 12 
 Victoria, ch. 35, entitled " An act to empower the lord lieutenant, or other chief gov- 
 ernor or governors of Ireland, to apprehend and detain until the first day of March, 
 1849, such persons as he or they shall suspect of conspiring against her Majesty's person 
 and government," passed July 25, 1848, which statute in terms declares that all and 
 every person and persons who is, are, or shall be, within that period, within that part 
 of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland called Ireland at or on the day the act 
 shall receive her Majesty's royal assent, or after, by warrant for high treason or treason- 
 able practices, or suspicion of high treason or treasonable practices, signed by the lord 
 lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland for the time being, or his or 
 their chief secretary, for such causes as aforesaid, may be detained in safe custody 
 without bail or main prize, until the first day of March, 1849; and that no judge or 
 justice shall bail or try any such person or persons so committed, without order from 
 her Majesty's privy council, until the said first day of March, 1849, any law or statute 
 to the contrary notwithstanding. The second section of this act provides that, in cases 
 where any persons have been, before the passing of the act, arrested, committed, or 
 detained for such cause by warrant or warrants signed by the officers aforesaid, or
 
 356 APPENDIX. 
 
 either of them, it may be lawful for the person or persons to whom such warrants have 
 been or shall be directed, to detain such person or persons in his or their custody in any 
 place whatever in Ireland; and that such person or persons to whom such warrants 
 have been or shall be directed shall be deemed and taken, to all intents and purposes, 
 lawfully authorized to take into safe custody and be the lawful jailers and keepers of 
 such persons so arrested, committed, or detained. 
 
 Here the power of arrest is given by the act of Parliament to the governor or his 
 secretary; the process of the civil courts was wholly suspended; bail was denied and 
 the parties imprisoned, and this not by process of the courts, but by warrant of a 
 chief governor or his secretary; not for crimes charged to have been committed, but 
 for being suspected of treasonable practices. Magna Charta, it seems, opposes no 
 restraint, notwithstanding the parade that is made about it in this argument, upon the 
 power of the Parliament of England to legalize arrests and imprisonments made before 
 the passage of the act upon an executive order, and without colorable authority of 
 statute law, and to authorize like arrests and imprisonments of so many of six million of 
 people as such executive officers might suspect of treasonable practices. 
 
 But, says the gentleman, whatever may be the precedents, English or American, 
 whatever may be the provisions of the Constitution, whatever may be the legislation of 
 Congress, whatever may be the proclamations and orders of the President as Com- 
 mander-in-Chief, it is a usurpation and a tyranny in time of rebellion and civil war to 
 subject any citizen to trial for any crime before military tribunals, save such citizens as 
 are in the land or naval forces, and against this usurpation, which he asks this court to 
 rebuke by solemn decision, he appeals to public opinion. I trust that I set as high 
 value upon enlightened public opinion as any man. I recognize it as the reserved power 
 of the people which creates and dissolves armies, which creates and dissolves legislative 
 assemblies, which enacts and repeals fundamental laws, the better to provide for per- 
 sonal security by the due administration of justice. To that public opinion upon this 
 very question of the usurpation of authority, of unlawful arrests, and unlawful imprison- 
 ments, and unlawful trials, condemnations, and executions by the late President of the 
 United States, an appeal has already been taken. On this very issue the President was 
 tried before the tribunal of the people, that great nation of freemen who cover this con- 
 tinent, looking out upon Europe from their eastern and upon Asia from their western 
 homes. That people came to the consideration of this issue not unmindful of the fact 
 that the first struggle for the establishment of our nationality could not have been, and 
 was not, successfully prosecuted without the proclamation and enforcement of martial 
 law, declaring, as we have seen, that any inhabitant who, during that war, should 
 kill any loyal citizen, or enter into any combination for that purpose, should, upon trial 
 and conviction before a military tribunal, be sentenced as an assassin, traitor, or spy, 
 and should suffer death, and that in this last struggle for the maintenance of American 
 nationality the President but followed the example of the illustrious Father of his 
 Country. Upon that issue the people passed judgment on the 8th day of last Nov- 
 ember, and declared that the charge of usurpation was false. 
 
 From this decision of the people there lies no appeal on this earth. Who can right- 
 fully challenge the authority of the American people to decide such questions for them- 
 selves? The voice of the people, thus solemnly proclaimed, by the omnipotence of the 
 ballot in favor of the righteous order of their murdered President, issued by him for 
 the common defense, for the preservation of the Constitution, and for the enforcement 
 of the laws of the Union, ought to be accepted, and will be accepted, I trust, by all 
 just men, as the voice of God.
 
 APPENDIX. 357 
 
 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: I have said thus much touching the right of the people, 
 under their Constitution, in time of civil war and rebellion, to proclaim through their 
 Executive, with the sanction and approval of their Congress, martial law, and enforce 
 the same according to the usage of nations. 
 
 I submit that it has been shown that, by the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as 
 well as by its contemporaneous construction, followed and approved by every depart- 
 ment of the government, this. right is in the people; that it is inseparable from the con- 
 dition of war, whether civil or foreign, and absolutely essential to its vigorous and 
 successful prosecution; that according to the highest authority upon constitutional law, 
 the proclamation and enforcement of martial law are " usual under all governments in 
 time of rebellion " ; that our own highest judicial tribunal has declared this, and solemnly 
 ruled that the question of the necessity for its exercise rests exclusively with Congress and 
 the President; and that the decision of the political departments of the government, 
 that there is an armed rebellion and a necessity for the employment of military force 
 and martial law in its suppression concludes the judiciary. 
 
 In submitting what I have said in support of the jurisdiction of this honorable court, 
 and of its constitutional power to hear and determine this issue, I have uttered my own 
 convictions; and for their utterance in defense of my country, and its right to employ 
 all the means necessary for the common defense against armed rebellion and secret 
 treasonable conspiracy in aid of such rebellion, I shall neither ask pardon nor offer 
 apology. I find no words with which more fitly to conclude all I have to say upon the 
 question of the jurisdiction and constitutional authority of this court than those employed 
 by the illustrious Lord Brougham to the House of Peers in the support of the bill before 
 referred to, which empowered the lord lieutenant of Ireland, and his deputies, to 
 apprehend and detain, for the period of seven months or more, all such persons within 
 that island as they should suspect of conspiracy against her Majesty's person and govern- 
 ment. Said that illustrious man: "A friend of liberty I have lived, and such will I 
 die; nor care I how soon the latter event may happen, if I cannot be a friend of liberty 
 without being a friend of traitors at the same time a protector of criminals of the 
 deepest dye an accomplice of foul rebellion and of its concomitant, civil war, with 
 all its atrocities and all its fearful consequences." Hansard's Debates, 3d series, vol. 
 100, p. 635. 
 
 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT : It only remains for me to sum up the evidence and 
 present my views of the law arising upon the facts in the case on trial. The questions 
 of fact involved in the issue are : 
 
 First, did the accused, or any two of them, confederate and conspire together as 
 charged ? and 
 
 Second, did the accused, or any of them, in pursuance of such conspiracy, and 
 with the intent alleged, commit either or all of the several acts specified? 
 
 If the conspiracy be established, as laid, it results that whatever was said or done 
 by either of the parties thereto, in the furtherance or execution of the common design, 
 is the declaration or act of all the other parties to the conspiracy; and this, whether the 
 other parties, at the time such words were uttered or such acts done by their confederates, 
 were present or absent here, within the intrenched lines of your capital, or crouching 
 behind the intrenched lines of Richmond, or awaiting the results of their murderous 
 plot against their country, its Constitution and laws, across the border, under the shelter 
 of the British flag. 
 
 The declared and accepted rule of law in cases of conspiracy is that
 
 358 APPENDIX. 
 
 " In prosecutions for conspiracy it is an established rule that where several persons 
 are proved to have combined together for the same illegal purpose, any act done by 
 one of the party, in pursuance of the original concerted plan, and in reference to the 
 common object, is, in the contemplation of law as well as in sound reason, the act of 
 the whole party; and, therefore, the proof of the act will be evidence against any of 
 the others who were engaged in the same general conspiracy, without regard to the 
 question whether the prisoner is proved to have been concerned in the particular trans- 
 action." Phillips on Evidence, p. 210. 
 
 The same rule obtains in cases of treason: " If several persons agree to levy war, 
 some in one place and some in another, and one party do actually appear in arms, this 
 is a levying of war by all, as well those who were not in arms as those who were, if it 
 were done in pursuance of the original concert, for those who made the attempt were 
 emboldened by the confidence inspired by the general concert, and therefore these par- 
 ticular acts are in justice imputable to all the rest." I East., Pleas of the Crown, 
 p. 97; Roscoe, 84. 
 
 In Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 126, Marshall, Chief Justice, 
 rules: "If war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled, 
 for the purpose of effecting, by force, a treasonable purpose, all those who perform 
 any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are 
 actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors." 
 
 In United States vs. Cole et al, 5 McLean, 601, Mr. Justice McLean says: "A 
 conspiracy is rarely, if ever, proved by positive testimony. When a crime of high 
 magnitude is about to be perpetrated by a combination of individuals, they do not act 
 openly but covertly and secretly. The purpose formed is known only to those who 
 enter into it. Unless one of the original conspirators betray his companions and give 
 evidence against them, their guilt can be proved only by circumstantial evidence. . . . 
 It is said by some writers on evidence that such circumstances are stronger than positive 
 proof. A witness swearing positively, it is said, may misapprehend the facts or swear 
 falsely, but that circumstances cannot lie. 
 
 " The common design is the essence of the charge; and this may be made to appear 
 when the defendants steadily pursue the same object, whether acting separately or 
 together, by common or different means, all leading to the same unlawful result. And 
 where prima facie evidence has been given of a combination, the acts or confessions 
 of one are evidence against all. . . . It is reasonable that where a body of men 
 assume the attribute of individuality, whether for commercial business or for the com- 
 mission of a crime, that the association should be bound by the acts of one of its 
 members in carrying out the design." 
 
 It is a rule of the law, not to be overlooked in this connection, that the conspiracy 
 or agreement of the parties, or some of them, to act in concert to accomplish the 
 unlawful act charged, may be established either by direct evidence of a meeting or 
 consultation for the illegal purpose charged, or more usually, from the very nature of 
 the case, by circumstantial evidence. 2 Starkie, 232. 
 
 Lord Mansfield ruled that it was not necessary to prove the actual fact of a con- 
 spiracy, but that it might be collected from collateral circumstances. Parson's Case, 
 I W. Blackstone, 392. 
 
 " If," says a great authority on the law of evidence, "on a charge of conspiracy, 
 it appear that two persons by their acts are pursuing the same object, and often by the 
 same means, or one performing part of the act and the other completing it, for the
 
 APPENDIX. 359 
 
 attainment of the same object, the jury may draw the conclusion there is a conspiracy. 
 If a conspiracy be formed, and a person join in it afterwards, he is equally guilty with 
 the original conspirators." Roscoe, 415. 
 
 "The rule of the admissibility of the acts and declarations of any one of the con- 
 spirators, said or done in furtherance of the common design, applies in cases as well 
 where only part of the conspirators are indicted or upon trial as where all are indicted 
 and upon trial. Thus, upon an indictment for murder, if it appear that others, together 
 with the prisoner, conspired to commit the crime, the act of one, done in pursuance of 
 that intention, will be evidence against the rest." ad Starkie, 237. 
 
 They are all alike guilty as principals. Commonwealth vs. Knapp, 9 Pickering, 
 496; 10 Pickering, 477; 6 Term Reports, 528; n East., 584. 
 
 What is the evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the accused, or either of them, 
 together with John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth, Jefferson Davis, George N. Sanders, 
 Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper, 
 and George Young, did combine, confederate, and conspire, in aid of the existing rebel- 
 lion, as charged, to kill and murder, within the military department of Washington, and 
 within the fortified and intrenched lines thereof, Abraham Lincoln, late, and at the 
 time of the said combining, confederating, and conspiring, President of the United 
 States of America and Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy thereof; Andrew 
 Johnson, Vice-President of the United States; William H. Seward, Secretary of State 
 of the United States; and Ulysses S. Grant, Lieutenant General of the armies thereof, 
 and then in command, under the direction of the President? 
 
 The time, as laid in the charge and specification, when this conspiracy was entered 
 into, is immaterial, so that it appear by the evidence that the criminal combination and 
 agreement were formed before the commission of the acts alleged. That Jefferson 
 Davis, one of the conspirators named, was the acknowledged chief and leader of the 
 existing rebellion against the government of the United States, and that Jacob Thomp- 
 son, George N. Sanders, Clement C. Clay, Beverly Tucker, and others named in the 
 specification, were his duly accredited and authorized agents to act in the interests of 
 said rebellion, are facts established by the testimony in this case beyond all question. 
 That Davis, as the leader of said rebellion, gave to those agents, then in Canada, com- 
 missions in blank, bearing the official signature of his war minister, James A. Seddon, 
 to be by them filled up and delivered to such agents as they might employ to act in the 
 interests of the rebellion within the United States, and intended to be a cover and pro- 
 tection for any crimes they might therein commit in the service of the rebellion, is also 
 a fact established here, and which no man can gainsay. Who doubts that Kennedy, 
 whose confession made in view of immediate death, as proved here, was commissioned 
 by those accredited agents of Davis to burn the city of New York ? that he was to 
 have attempted it on the night of the presidental election, and that he did, in combina- 
 tion with his confederates, set fire to four hotels in the city of New York on the night 
 of the 25th of November last? Who doubts that, in like manner, in the interests of the 
 rebellion and by the authority of Davis, these his agents also commissioned Bennett H. 
 Young to commit arson, robbery, and the murder of unarmed citizens, in St. Albans, 
 Vt. ? Who doubts, upon the testimony shown, that Davis, by his agents, deliber- 
 ately adopted the system of starvation for the murder of our captive soldiers in his 
 hands ; or that, as shown by the testimony, he sanctioned the burning of hospitals and 
 steamboats, the property of private persons, and paid therefor from his stolen treasure 
 the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars in gold ? By the evidence of Joseph Godfrey
 
 360 APPENDIX. 
 
 Hyams it is proved that Thompson, the agent of Jefferson Davis, paid him money 
 for the service he rendered in the infamous and fiendish project of importing pestilence 
 into our camps and cities to destroy the lives of citizens and soldiers alike, and into the 
 house of the President for the purpose of destroying his life. It may be said, and 
 doubtless will be said, by the pensioned advocates of this rebellion, that Hyams, being 
 infamous, is not to be believed. It is admitted that he is infamous, as it must be conceded 
 that any man is infamous who either participates in such a crime or attempts in anywise 
 to extenuate it. But it will be observed that Hyams is supported by the testimony of 
 Mr. Sanford Conover, who heard Blackburn and the other rebel agents in Canada speak 
 of this infernal project, and by the testimony of Mr. Wall, the well-known auctioneer 
 of this city, whose character in unquestioned, that he received this importation of pesti- 
 lence (of course without any knowledge of the purpose), and that Hyams consigned 
 the goods to him in the name of J. W. Harris, a fact in itself an acknowledgment of 
 guilt; and that he received afterwards a letter from Harris, dated Toronto, Canada 
 West, December I, 1864, wherein Harris stated that he had not been able to come to 
 the States since his return to Canada, and asked for an account of the sale. He identi- 
 fies the Godfrey Joseph Hyams who testified in court as the J. W. Harris who imported 
 the pestilence. The very transaction shows that Hyams's statement is truthful. He 
 gives the names of the parties connected with this infamy (Clement C. Clay, Dr. 
 Blackburn, Rev. Dr. Stuart Robinson, J. C. Holcombe all refugees from the Con- 
 federacy in Canada), and states that he gave Thompson a receipt for the fifty dollars 
 paid to him, and that he was by occupation a shoemaker; in none of which facts is 
 there an attempt to discredit him. It is not probable that a man in his position in life 
 would be able to buy five trunks of clothing, ship them all the way from Halifax to 
 Washington, and then order them to be sold at auction, without regard to price, solely 
 upon his own account. It is a matter of notoriety that a part of his statement is verified 
 by the results at New Berne, N.C., to which point he says a portion of the infected 
 goods were shipped, through a sutler; the result of which was, that nearly two thou- 
 sand citizens and soldiers died there about that time with yellow fever. 
 
 That the rebel chief, Jefferson Davis, sanctioned these crimes, committed and 
 attempted through the instrumentality of his accredited agents in Canada Thompson, 
 Clay, Tucker, Sanders, Cleary, etc., upon the persons and property of the people of 
 the North, their is positive proof on your record. The letter brought from Richmond, 
 and taken from the archives of his late pretended government there, dated February 
 II, 1865, and addressed to him by the late rebel senator from Texas, W. S. Oldham, 
 contains the following significant words: "When Senator Johnson, of Missouri, and 
 myself waited on you a few days since, in relation to the project of annoying and har- 
 assing the enemy by means of burning their shipping, towns, etc., etc., there were 
 several remarks made by you upon the subject which I was not fully prepared to 
 answer, but which, upon subsequent conference with parties proposing the enterprise, 
 I find cannot apply as objections to the scheme. First, the ' combustible materials ' 
 consist of several preparations, and not one alone, and can be used without exposing 
 the party using them to the least danger of detection whatever. . . . Second, 
 there is no necessity for sending persons in the military service into the enemy's coun- 
 try, but the work may be done by agents. ... I have seen enough of the effects 
 that can be produced to satisfy me that in most cases, without any danger to the parties 
 engaged, and in others but very slight, we can, first, burn every vessel that leaves a 
 foreign port for the United States; second, we can burn every transport that leaves the
 
 APPENDIX. 361 
 
 harbor of New York, or other Northern port, with supplies for the armies of the enemy 
 in the South; third, burn every transport and gunboat on the Mississippi River, as well 
 as devastate the country of the enemy and fill his people with terror and consternation. 
 For the purpose of satisfying your mind upon the subject, I respectfully, but 
 earnestly, request that you will give an interview with General Harris, formerly a 
 member of Congress from Missouri, who, I think, is able, from conclusive proofs, to 
 convince you that what I have suggested is perfectly feasible and practicable." 
 
 No one can doubt, from the tenure of this letter, that the rebel Davis only wanted 
 to be satisfied that this system of arson and murder could be carried on by his agents 
 in the North successfully and without detection. With him it was not a crime to do 
 these acts, but only a crime to be detected in them. But Davis, by his indorsement on 
 this letter, dated the 2Oth of February, 1865, bears witness to his own complicity and 
 his own infamy in this proposed work of destruction and crime for the future, as well 
 as to his complicity in what had before been attempted without complete success. Ken- 
 nedy, with his confederates, had failed to burn the city of New York. "The combus- 
 tibles " which Kennedy had employed were, it seems, defective. This was " a difficulty 
 to be overcome." Neither had he been able to consummate the dreadful work without 
 subjecting himself to detection. This was another " difficulty to be overcome." Davis, 
 on the 2Oth of February, 1865, indorsed upon this letter these words: "Secretary of 
 State, at his convenience, see General Harris and learn what plan he has for overcoming 
 the difficulties heretofore experienced. J. Z)." 
 
 This indorsement is unquestionably proved to be the handwriting of Jefferson 
 Davis, and it bears witness on its face that the monstrous proposition met his approval, 
 and that he desired his rebel Secretary of State, Benjamin, to see General Harris and 
 learn how to overcome the difficulty heretofore experienced, to wit : the inefficiency of 
 " the combustible materials " that had been employed, and the liability of his agents to 
 detection. After this, who will doubt that he had endeavored, by the hand of incen- 
 diaries, to destroy by fire the property and lives of the people of the North, and thereby 
 "fill them with terror and consternation" ; that he knew his agents had been unsuc- 
 cessful; that he knew his agents had been detected in their villainy and punished for 
 their crime; that he desired through a more perfect " chemical preparation," by the 
 science and skill of Professor McCulloch, to accomplish successfully what had before 
 been unsuccessfully attempted? 
 
 The intercepted letter of his agent, Clement C. Clay, dated St. Catherine's, Canada 
 West, November I, 1864, is an acknowledgment and confession of what they had 
 attempted, and a suggestion made through J. P. Benjamin, rebel Secretary of State, 
 of what remained to be done in order to make the " chemical preparations " efficient. 
 Speaking of this Bennett II. Young, he says: " You have doubtless learned through the 
 press of the United States of the raid on St. Albans by about twenty-five Confederate 
 soldiers, led by Lieut. Bennett H. Young; of their attempt and failure to burn the town; 
 of their robbery of three banks there of the aggregate amount of about two hundred 
 thousand dollars; of their arrest in Canada by United -States forces; of their commit- 
 ment and the pending preliminary trial." He makes application, in aid of Young and his 
 associates, for additional documents, showing that they acted upon the authority of the 
 Confederate States government, taking care to say, however, that he held such author- 
 ity at the time, but that it ought to be more explicit so far as regards the particular acts 
 complained of. He states that he met Young at Halifax in May, 1864, who developed 
 his plans for retaliation on the enemy; that he, Clay, recommended him to the rebel
 
 362 APPENDIX. 
 
 Secretary of War; that after this "Young was sent back by the Secretary of War with 
 a commission as second lieutenant to execute his plans and purposes, but to report to 
 
 Hon. and myself." Young afterwards " proposed passing through New England, 
 
 burning some towns and robbing them of whatever he could convert to the use of the 
 Confederate government. This I approved as justifiable retaliation. He attempted to 
 burn the town of St. Albans, Vt., and would have succeeded but for the failure of the 
 chemical preparation with which he was armed. He then robbed the banks of funds 
 amounting to over two hundred thousand dollars. That he was not prompted by selfish 
 or mercenary motives I am as well satisfied as I am that he is an honest man. He 
 assured me before going that his effort would be to destroy towns and farm-houses, but 
 not to plunder or rob; but he said if, after firing a town, he saw he could take funds 
 from a bank or any house, and thereby might inflict injury upon the enemy and benefit 
 liis own government, he would do so. He added most emphatically, that whatever he 
 took should be turned over to the government or its representatives in foreign lands. 
 My instructions to him were to destroy whatever was valuable; not to stop to rob, but 
 If, after firing a town, he could seize and carry off money or treasury or bank notes, he 
 might do so upon condition that they were delivered to the proper authorities of the 
 Confederate States " that is, to Clay himself. 
 
 When he wrote this letter it seems that this accredited agent of Jefferson Davis was 
 as strongly impressed with the usurpation and despotism of Mr. Lincoln's administra- 
 tion as some of the advocates of his aiders and abettors seem to be at this day; and he 
 indulges in the following statement: "All that a large portion of the Northern people, 
 especially in the northwest, want to resist the oppressions of the despotism at Washing- 
 ton is a leader. They are ripe for resistance, and it may come soon after the presidential 
 election. At all events, it must come if our armies are not overcome, or destroyed, or 
 dispersed. No people of the Anglo-Saxon blood can long endure the usurpations and 
 tyrannies of Lincoln.' 1 '' Clay does not sign the despatch, but indorses the bearer of it 
 .as a person who can identify him and give his name. The bearer of that letter was the 
 witness Richard Montgomery, who saw Clay write a portion of the letter, and received 
 it from his hands, and subsequently delivered it to the Assistant Secretary of War of 
 the United States, Mr. Dana. That the letter is in Clay's handwriting is clearly proved 
 by those familiar with it. Mr. Montgomery testifies that he was instructed by Clay to 
 deliver this letter to Benjamin, the rebel Secretary of State, if he could get through to 
 Richmond, and to tell him what names to put in the blanks. 
 
 This letter leaves no doubt, if any before existed in the mind of any one who had 
 read the letter of Oldham and Davis's indorsement thereon, that "the chemical prepa- 
 rations" and " combustible materials " had been tried and had failed, and it had 
 become a matter of great moment and concern that they should be so prepared as, in 
 the words of Davis, "to overcome the difficulties heretofore experienced " ; that is to 
 say, complete the work of destruction, and secure the perpetrators against personal 
 injury or detection in the performance of it. 
 
 It only remains to be seen whether Davis, the procurer of arson and of the indis- 
 criminate murder of the innocent and unoffending necessarily resultant therefrom, was 
 capable also of endeavoring to procure, and in fact did procure, the murder, by direct 
 assassination, of the President of the United States and others charged with the duty 
 of maintaining the government of the United States, and of suppressing the rebellion 
 in which this arch-traitor and conspirator was engaged. 
 
 The official papers of Davis, captured under the guns of our victorious army in his
 
 APPENDIX. 363 
 
 Tebel capital, identified beyond question or shadow of doubt, and placed upon your 
 record, together with the declaration and acts of his co-conspirators and agents, proclaim 
 to all the world that he was capable of attempting to accomplish his treasonable proc- 
 uration of the murder of the late President, and other chief officers of the United 
 States, by the hands of hired assassins. 
 
 In the fall of 1864 Lieutenant W. Alston addresses to " his excellency " a letter 
 now before the court, which contains the following words: 
 
 " I now offer you my services, and if you will favor me in my designs I will proceed, 
 as soon as my health will permit, to rid my country of some of her deadliest enemies, 
 by striking at the very hearts' blood of those who seek to enchain her in slavery. I con- 
 sider nothing dishonorable having such a tendency. All I ask of you is, to favor me by 
 granting me the necessary papers, etc., to travel on. . . . / am perfectly familiar 
 with the North, and feel confident that I can execute anything I undertake. I was in the 
 raid last June in Kentucky, under General John H. Morgan; . . . was taken pris- 
 oner; . . . escaped from them by dressing myself in the garb of a citizen. 
 I went through to the Canadas, from whence, by the assistance of Colonel J. P. Ilolcomb, 
 I succeeded in working my way around and through the blockade. ... I should 
 like to have a personal interview with you in order to perfect the arrangements before 
 starting." 
 
 Is there any room to doubt that this was a proposition to assassinate, by the hand 
 of this man and 'his associates, such persons in the North as he deemed the " deadliest 
 enemies" of the rebellion? The weakness of the man who for a moment can doubt 
 that such was the proposition of the writer of this letter is certainly an object of com- 
 miseration. What had Jefferson Davis to say to this proposed assassination of the 
 " deadliest enemies " in the North of his great treason? Did the atrocious suggestion 
 kindle in him indignation against the villain who offered, with hie own hand, to strike 
 the blow? Not at all. On the contrary, he ordered his private secretary, on the 2gth 
 of November, 1864, to endorse upon the letter these words: " Lieutenant W. Alston; 
 accompanied raid into Kentucky, and was captured, but escaped into Canada, from 
 whence he found his way back. Now offers his services to rid the country of some of 
 its deadliest enemies; asks for papers, etc. Respectfully referred, by direction of the 
 President, to the honorable Secretary of War." It is also indorsed, for attention, " by 
 order. (Signed) J. A. Campbell, Assistant Secretary of War." 
 
 Note the fact in this connection, that Jefferson Davis himself, as well as his 
 subordinates, had, before the date of this indorsement, concluded that Abraham 
 Lincoln was "the deadliest enemy " of the rebellion. You hear it in the rebel camp 
 in Virginia, in 1863, declared by Booth, then and there present, and assented to by 
 rebel officers, that " Abraham Lincoln must be killed." You hear it in that slaughter-pen 
 in Georgia Andersonville proclaimed among rebel officers, who, by the slow torture 
 of starvation, inflicted cruel and untimely death on ten thousand of your defenders, cap- 
 tives in their hands whispering, like demons, their horrid purpose, " Abraham Lincoln 
 must be killed." And in Canada, the accredited agents of Jefferson Davis, as early as 
 October, 1864, and afterwards, declared that " Abraham Lincoln must be killed " if 
 his re-election could not be prevented. These agents in Canada, on t" e I3th of 
 October, 1864, delivered, in cipher, to be transmitted to Richmond by Richard Mont- 
 gomery, the witness, whose reputation is unchallenged, the following communication : 
 
 "OCTOBER 13, 1864. 
 
 " We again urge the immense necessity of our gaining immediate advantages. 
 Strain every nerve for victory. We now look upon the re-election of Lincoln in
 
 364 APPENDIX. 
 
 November as almost certain, and we need to whip his hirelings to prevent it. Besides,, 
 with Lincoln re-elected, and his armies victorious, we need not hope even for recogni- 
 tion, much less the help mentioned in our last. Holcomh will explain this. Those 
 figures of the Yankee armies are correct to a unit. Our friends shall be immediately set' 
 to work as you direct. ' ' 
 
 To which an official reply, in cipher, was delivered to Montgomery by an agent of 
 the state department in Richmond, dated October 19, 1864, as follows: 
 
 " Your letter of the I3th instant is at hand. There is yet time enough to colonize 
 many voters before November. A blow will shortly be stricken here. It is not quite 
 time. General Longstreet is to attack Sheridan without delay, and then move north as 
 far as practicable toward unprotected points. This will be made instead of movement 
 before mentioned. He will endeavor to assist the republicans in collecting their ballots. 
 Be watchful and assist him." 
 
 On the very day of the date of this Richmond despatch, Sheridan was attacked, with 
 what success history will declare. The court will not fail to notice that the re-election of 
 Mr. Lincoln is to be prevented, if possible, by any and every means. Nor will they fail 
 to notice that Holcombe is to " explain this " the same person who, in Canada, was the 
 friend and advisor of Alston, who proposed to Davis the assassination of the " deadliest 
 enemies " of the rebellion. 
 
 In the despatch of the I3th of October, which was borne by Montgomery, and trans- 
 mitted to Richmond in October last, you will find these words: " Our friends shall be 
 immediately set to work as you direct." Mr. Lincoln is the subject of that despatch. 
 Davis is therein notified that his agents in Canada look upon the re-election of Mr. 
 Lincoln in November as almost certain. In this connection he is assured by those agents 
 that the friends of their cause are to be set to work as Davis had directed. The con- 
 versations, which are proved by witnesses whose character stands unimpeached, disclose 
 what " work " the " friends " were to do under the direction of Davis himself. Who 
 were these " friends," and what was " the work " which his agents, Thompson, Clay, 
 Tucker, and Sanders, had been directed to set them at ? Let Thompson answer for him- 
 self. In a conversation with Richard Montgomery in the summer of 1864, Thompson 
 said that he " had his friends, confederates, all over the Northern States, who were ready 
 and willing to go any lengths for the good of the cause of the South, and he could at anjr 
 time have the tyrant Lincoln or any other of his advisers that he chose put out of his -way ; 
 that they would not consider it a crime when done for the cause of the Confederacy." 
 This conversation was repeated by the witness in the summer of 1864, to Clement C. 
 Clay, who immediately stated : " That is so ; we are all devoted to our cause and ready 
 to go any length to do anything under the sun." 
 
 At and about the time that these declarations of Clay and Thompson were made, Alston, 
 who made the proposition, as we have seen, to Davis to be furnished with papers to go 
 north and rid the Confederacy of some of its "deadliest enemies," was in Canada. 
 He was doubtless one of the " friends " referred to. As appears by the testimony of 
 Montgomery, Payne, the prisoner at your bar, was about that time in Canada, and was 
 seen standing by Thompson's door, engaged in a conversation with Clay, between whom 
 and the witness some words were interchanged, when Clay stated he (Payne) was one 
 of their friends "we trust him." It is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that in 
 October last John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of the President, was also in Canada, and 
 upon intimate terms with Thompson, Clay, Sanders, and other rebel agents. Who can 
 doubt, in the light of the events which have since transpired, that he was one of the
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 365 
 
 " friends " to be " set to work," as Davis had already directed not, perhaps, as yet 
 to assassinate the President, hut to do that other work which is suggested in the letter 
 of Oldham, indorsed by Davis in his own hand, and spread upon your record the 
 work of a secret incendiary, which was to " fill the people of the North with terror and 
 consternation." The other "work" spoken of by Thompson putting the tyrant 
 Lincoln and any of his advisers out of the ioay was work doubtless to be commenced only 
 after the re-election of Mr. Lincoln, which they had already declared in their despatch 
 to their employer, Davis, was with them a foregone conclusion. At all events, it was 
 not until after the presidental election in November that Alston proposed to Davis to 
 go north on the work of assassination ; nor was it until after that election that Booth was 
 found in possession of the letter which is in evidence, and which dicloses the purpose to 
 assassinate the President. Being assured, however, when Booth was with them in Canada, 
 as they had already declared in their despatch, that the re-election of Mr. Lincoln was 
 certain, in which event there would be no hope for the Confederacy, they doubtless 
 entered into the arrangement with Booth as one of their " friends," that as soon as that 
 fact was determined be should go to " work," and as soon as might be " rid the Con- 
 federacy of the tyrant Lincoln and of his advisers." 
 
 That these persons named upon your record, Thompson, Sanders, Clay, Cleary, and 
 Tucker, were the agents of Jefferson Davis, is another fact established in this case 
 beyond a doubt. They made affidavit of it themselves, of record here, upon the exam- 
 ination of their " friends " charged with the raid upon St. Albans, before Judge Smith, 
 in Canada. It is in evidence also, by the letter of Clay, before referred to. 
 
 The testimony to which I have thus briefly referred shows, by the letter of his. 
 agents of the I3th of October, that Davis had before directed those agents to set his 
 friends to work. By the letter of Clay it seems that his direction had been obeyed, and 
 his friends had been set to work in the burning and robbery and murder at St. Albans, 
 in the attempt to burn the city of New York, and in the attempt to introduce pestilence 
 into this capital and into the house of the President. It having appeared, by the letter 
 of Alston, and the indorsement thereon, that Davis had in November entertained the 
 proposition of sending agents, that is to say " friends," to the North to not only "spread 
 terror and consternation among the people " by means of his " chemical preparations," 
 but also, in the words of that letter, to " strike," by the hands of assassins, " at the 
 heart's blood " of the deadliest enemies in the North to the Confederacy of traitors ; 
 it has also appeared by the testimony of many respectable witnesses, among others the 
 attorneys who represented the people of the United States and the State of Vermont, in 
 the preliminary trial of the raiders in Canada, that Clay, Thompson, Tucker, Sanders, 
 and Cleary declared themselves the agents of the Confederacy. It also clearly appears 
 by the correspondence referred to, and the letter of Clay, that they were holding, and 
 at any time able to command, blank commissions from Jefferson Davis to authorize their 
 friends to do whatever work they appointed them to do in the interests of the rebellion, 
 by the destruction of life and property in the North. 
 
 If a prinia facie case justifies, as we have seen by the law of evidence it does, the 
 introduction of all declarations and acts of any of the parties to a conspiracy, uttered or 
 done in the prosecution of the common design, as evidence against all the rest, it results 
 that whatever was said or done in furtherance of the common design, after this month 
 of October, 1864, by either of these agents in Canada, is evidence not only against 
 themselves, but against Davis as well, of his complicity with them in the conspiracy. 
 Mr. Montgomery testifies that he met Jacob Thompson in January at Montreal, when
 
 366 APPENDIX. 
 
 he said that "a proposition had been made to him to rid the world of the tyrant Lin- 
 coln, Stanton, Grant, and some others; that he knew the men who had made the prop- 
 osition were bold, daring men, able to execute what they undertook; that he himself 
 was in favor of the proposition, but had determined to defer his answer until he had 
 consulted his government at Richmond; that he was then only awaiting their approval." 
 This was about the middle of January, and consequently more than a month after Alston 
 had made his proposition direct to Davis, in writing, to go north and rid their Confeder- 
 acy of some of its "deadliest enemies." It was at the time of this conversation that 
 Payne, the prisoner, was seen by the witness standing at Thompson's door in conversa- 
 tion with Clay. This witness also shows the intimacy between Thompson, Clay, Cleary, 
 Tucker, and Sanders. 
 
 A few days after the assassination of the President, Beverly Tucker said to this witness 
 " that President Lincoln deserved his death long ago; that it was a pity he didn't have 
 it long ago, and it was too bad that the boys had not been allowed to act when they 
 wanted to." 
 
 This remark undoubtedly had reference to the propositions made in the fall to 
 Thompson, and also to Davis, to rid the South of its deadliest enemies by their assassi- 
 nation. Cleary, who was accredited by Thompson as his confidential agent, also stated 
 to this witness that Booth was one of the party to whom Thompson had referred in the 
 conversation in January, in which he said he knew the men who were ready to rid the 
 world of the tyrant Lincoln, and of Stanton and Grant. Cleary also said, speaking of 
 the assassination, "that it was a pity that the whole work had not been done," and 
 added, " they had better look out we are not done yet "; manifestly referring to the 
 statement made by his employer, Thompson, before in the summer, that not only the 
 tyrant Lincoln, but Stanton and Grant, and others of his advisers, should be put out of 
 the way. Cleary also stated to this witness that Booth had visited Thompson twice in' 
 the winter, the last time in December, and had also been there in the summer. 
 
 Sanford Conover testified that he had been for some time a clerk in the war depart- 
 ment at Richmond; that in Canada he knew Thompson, Sanders, Cleary, Tucker, Clay, 
 and other rebel agents; that he knew John H. Surratt and John Wilkes Booth; that he 
 saw Booth there upon one occasion, and Surratt upon several successive days; that he 
 saw Surratt (whom he describes) in April last in Thompson's room, and also in com- 
 pany with Sanders; that about the 6th or 7th of April, Surratt delivered to Jacob 
 Thompson a despatch brought by him from Benjamin at Richmond, enclosing one in 
 cipher from Davis. Thompson had before this proposed to Conover to engage in a plot 
 to assassinate President Lincoln and his cabinet, and on this occasion he laid his hand 
 upon these despatches and said, "This makes the thing all right," referring to the 
 assent of the rebel authorities, and stated that the rebel authorities had consented to the 
 plot to assassinate Lincoln, Johnson, the Secretary of War, Secretary of State, Judge 
 Chase, and General Grant. Thompson remarked further that the assassination of these 
 parties would leave the government of the United States entirely without a head; that 
 there was no provision in the Constitution of the United States by which they could 
 elect another President if these men were put out of the way. 
 
 In speaking of this assassination of the President and others, Thompson said that it 
 was only removing them from office, that the killing of a tyrant was no murder. It 
 seems that he had learned precisely the same lesson that Alston had learned in Novem- 
 ber, when he communicated with Davis, and said, speaking of the President's assassi- 
 nation, " he did not think anything dishonorable that would serve their cause."
 
 APPENDIX. 367 
 
 Thompson stated at the same time that he had conferred a commission on Booth, and 
 that everybody engaged in the enterprise would be commissioned, and if it succeeded, 
 or failed, and they escaped into Canada, they could not be reclaimed under the extra- 
 dition treaty. The fact that Thompson and other rebel agents held blank commissions, 
 as I have said, has been proved, and a copy of one of them is of record here. 
 
 This witness also testifies to a conversation with William C. Cleary, shortly after the 
 surrender of Lee's army, and on the day before the President's assassination, at the St. 
 Lawrence Hotel, Montreal, when speaking of the rejoicing in the States over the cap- 
 ture of Richmond, Cleary said, " they would put the laugh on the other side of their 
 mouth in a day or two ." These parties knew that Conover was in the secret of the 
 assassination, and talked with him about it as freely as they would speak of the weather. 
 Before the assassination he had a conversation also with Sanders, who asked him if he 
 knew Booth well, and expressed some apprehension that Booth would " make a failure 
 of it; that he was desperate and reckless, and he was afraid the whole thing would 
 prove a failure." 
 
 Dr. James D. Merritt testifies that George Young, one of the parties named in the 
 record, declared in his presence, in Canada, last fall, that Lincoln should never be 
 inaugurated; that they had friends in Washington who, I suppose, were some of the 
 same friends referred to in the despatch of October 13, and which Davis had directed 
 them "to set to work." George N. Sanders also said to him "that Lincoln would 
 keep himself mighty close if he did serve another term "; while Steele and other Con- 
 federates declared that the tyrant never should serve another term. He heard the assassi- 
 nation discussed at a meeting of these rebel agents in Montreal in February last. " San- 
 ders said they had plenty of money to accomplish the assassination, and named over a 
 number of persons who were ready and willing to engage in undertaking to remove the 
 President, Vice-President, the cabinet, and some of the leading generals. At this meet- 
 ing he read a letter which he had received from Davis, which justified him in making 
 any arrangements that he could to accomplish the object." This letter the witness 
 heard read, and it, in substance, declared that if the people in Canada and the South- 
 erners in the States were willing to submit to be governed by such a tyrant as Lincoln, 
 he didn't wish to recognize them as friends. The letter was read openly; it was also 
 handed to Colonel Steele, George Young, Hill, and Scott, to be read. This was about 
 the middle of February last. At this meeting Sanders named over the persons who 
 were willing to accomplish the assassination, and among the persons thus named was 
 Booth, whom the witness had seen in Canada in October ; also George Harper, one of 
 the conspirators named on the record, Caldwell, Randall, Harrison, and Surratt. 
 
 The witness understood, from the reading of the letter, that if the President, Vice- 
 President, and cabinet could be disposed of it would satisfy the people of the North 
 that the Southerners had friends in the North; that a peace could be obtained on better 
 terms; that the rebels had endeavored to bring about a war between the United States 
 and England, and that Mr. Seward, through his energy and sagacity, had thwarted all 
 their efforts; that was given as a reason for removing him. On the 5th or 6th of last 
 April this witness met George Harper, Caldwell, Randall, and others, who are spoken of 
 in this meeting at Montreal as engaged to assassinate the President and cabinet, when 
 Harper said they were going to the States to make a row such as had never been heard 
 of, and added that " if I (the witness) did not hear of the death of Old Abe, of the 
 Vice-President, and of General Dix in less than ten days I might put him down as a 
 fool. That was on the 6th of April. He mentioned that Booth was in Washington at
 
 368 APPENDIX. 
 
 that time. He said they had plenty of friends in Washington, and that some fifteen or 
 twenty were going." 
 
 This witness ascertained, on the 8th of April, that Harper and others had left for 
 the States. The proof is that these parties could come through to Washington from 
 Montreal or Toronto in thirty-six hours. They did come, and within the ten days 
 named by Harper the President was murdered ! Some attempts have been made to dis- 
 credit this witness (Dr. Merritt), not by the examination of witnesses in court, not by 
 any apparent want of truth in the testimony, but by the ex parte statements of these 
 rebel agents in Canada and their hired advocates in the United States. There is a state- 
 ment upon the record verified by an official communication from the War Department, 
 which shows the truthfulness of this witness, and that is, that before the assassination, 
 learning that Harper and his associates had started for the States, informed as he was 
 of their purpose to assassinate the President, cabinet, and leading generals, Merritt 
 deemed it his duty to call, and did call, on the loth of April, upon a justice of the 
 peace in Canada, named Davidson, and gave him the information that he might take 
 steps to stop these proceedings. The correspondence on this subject with Davidson has 
 been brought into court. Dr. Merritt testifies further that after this meeting in Mont- 
 real he had a conversation with Clement C. Clay, in Toronto, about the letter from 
 Jefferson Davis which Sanders had exhibited, in which conversation Clay gave the wit- 
 ness to understand that he knew the nature of the letter perfectly, and remarked that 
 he thought " the end would justify the means." The witness also testifies to the pres- 
 ence of Booth with Sanders in Montreal last fall, and of Surratt in Toronto in February 
 last. 
 
 The court must be satisfied by the manner of this and other witnesses to the transac- 
 tions in Canada, as well as by the fact that they are wholly uncontradicted in any mate- 
 rial matter that they state, that they speak the truth, and that the several parties named 
 on your record Davis, Thompson, Cleary, Tucker, Clay, Young, Harper, Booth, and 
 John H. Surratt did combine and conspire together in Canada to kill and murder 
 Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, William H. Seward, and Ulysses S. Grant. That 
 this agreement was substantially entered into by Booth and the agents of Davis in 
 Canada as early as October there cannot be any doubt. The language of Thompson at 
 that time and before was, that he was in. favor of the assassination. His further lan- 
 guage was that he knew the men who were ready to do it ; and Booth it was shown 
 was there at that time, and, as Thompson's secretary says, was one of the men referred 
 to by Thompson. 
 
 The fact that others, besides the parties named on the record, were, by the terms of 
 the conspiracy to be assassinated in no wise affects the case now on trial. If it is true 
 that these parties did conspire to murder other parties, as well as those named upon the 
 record, the substance of the charge is proved. 
 
 It is also true that if, in pursuance of that conspiracy, Booth, confederated with 
 Surratt and the accused, killed and murdered Abraham Lincoln, the charge and specifi- 
 cation is proved literally as stated on your record, although their conspiracy embraced 
 other persons. In law the case stands, though it may appear that the conspiracy was to 
 kill and murder the parties named in the record and others not named in the record. If 
 the proof is that the accused, with Booth, Surratt, Davis, etc., conspired to kill and 
 murder one or more of the persons named, the charge of the conspiracy is proved. 
 
 The declaration of Sanders, as proved, that there was plenty of money to carry out 
 this assassination, is very strongly corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Campbell, cashier
 
 APPENDIX. 369 
 
 of the Ontario Bank, who states that Thompson, during the current year preceding the 
 assassination, had upon deposit in the Montreal branch of the Ontario Bank six hundred 
 and forty-nine thousand dollars, beside large sums to his credit in other banks in the 
 p rovince. 
 
 There is a further corroboration of the testimony of Conover as to the meeting of 
 Thompson and Surratt in Montreal, and the delivery of the despatches from Richmond, 
 on the 6th or 7th of April, first, in the fact which is shown by the testimony of Chester, 
 that in the winter or spring Booth said he himself or some other party must go to Rich- 
 mond, and second, by the letter of Arnold, dated 27th of March last, that he preferred 
 Booth's first query, that he would first go to Richmond and see how they would take 
 it, manifestly alluding to the proposed assassination of the President. It does not follow 
 because Davis had written a letter in February which, in substance, approved the gen- 
 eral object, that the parties were fully satisfied with it ; because it is clear there was to 
 be some arrangement made about the funds ; and it is also clear that Davis had not 
 before as distinctly approved and sanctioned this act as his agents either in Canada or 
 here desired. Booth said to Chester, "We must have money ; there is money in this 
 business, and if you will enter into it I will place three thousand dollars at the disposal 
 of your family ; but I have no money myself, and must go to Richmond," or one of 
 the parties must go, " to get money to carry out the enterprise." This was one of 
 the arrangements that was to be "made right in Canada."- The funds at Thompson's 
 disposal, as the banker testifies, were exclusively raised by drafts of the secretary of the 
 treasury of the Confederate States -upon London, deposited in their bank to the credit of 
 Thompson. 
 
 Accordingly, about the 27th of March, Surratt did go to Richmond. On the 3rd of 
 April he returned to Washington, and the same day left for Canada. Before leaving, 
 he stated to Wiechmann that when in Richmond he had had a conversation with Davis 
 and with Benjamin. The fact in this connection is not to be overlooked, that on or 
 about the day Surratt arrived in Montreal, April 6, Jacob Thompson, as the cashier of 
 the Ontario bank states, drew of these Confederate funds the sum of one hundred and 
 eighty thousand dollars in the form of certificates, which, as the bank officer testifies, 
 " might be used anywhere." 
 
 What more is wanting ? Surely no word further need be spoken to show that John 
 Wilkes Booth was in this conspiracy ; that John H. Surratt was in this conspiracy ; 
 and that Jefferson Davis and his several agents named, in Canada, were in this con- 
 spiracy. If any additional evidence is wanting to show the complicity of Davis in it, 
 let the paper found in the possession of his hired assassin, Booth, come to bear witness 
 against him. That paper contained the secret cipher which Davis used in his state 
 department at Richmond which he employed in communicating with his agents in 
 Canada, and which they employed in the letter of October 13, notifying him that " their 
 friends would be set to work as he had directed '." The letter in cipher found in Booth's 
 possession is translated here by the use of the cipher machine now in court, which, as 
 the testimony of Mr. Dana shows, he brought from the rooms of Davis's state depart- 
 ment in Richmond. Who gave Booth this secret cipher? Of what use was it to him if 
 he was not in confederation with Davis? 
 
 But there is one other item of testimony that ought, among honest and intelligent 
 people at all conversant with this evidence, to end all further inquiry as to whether 
 Jefferson Davis was one of the parties, with Booth, as charged upon this record, in the 
 conspiracy to assassinate the President and others. That is that on the fifth day after
 
 3/0 APPENDIX. 
 
 the assassination, in the city of Charlotte, N. C., a telegraphic despatch was received by 
 him, at the house of Mr. Bates, from John C. Breckinridge, his rebel Secretary of War, 
 which despatch is produced here, identified by the telegraph agent, and placed upon 
 your record in the words following : 
 
 "GREENSBORO', April 19, 1865. 
 11 His 'Excellency President Davis : 
 
 " President Lincoln was assassinated in the theatre in Washington on the night of 
 the I4th inst. Seward's house was entered on the same night and he was repeatedly 
 stabbed, and is probably mortally wounded. 
 
 " JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE." 
 
 At the time this despatch was handed to him, Davis was addressing a meeting from 
 the steps of Mr. Bates's house, and after reading the despatch to the people, he said : 
 "If it were to be done, it were belter it were well done." Shortly afterwards, in the 
 house of the witness, in the same city, Breckinridge, having come to see Davis, stated 
 his regret that the occurrence had happened, because he deemed it unfortunate for the 
 people of the South at that time. Davis replied, referring to the assassination, " Well, 
 general, I don't know; if it were to be done at all, it were better that it were well 
 done; and if the same had been done to Andy Johnson, the beast, and to Secretary 
 Stanton, the job would then be complete.' 1 '' 
 
 Accomplished as this man was in all the arts of a conspirator, he was not equal to 
 the task as happily, in the good providence of God, no mortal man is of conceal- 
 ing, by any form of words, any great crime which he may have meditated or per- 
 petrated either against his government or his fellow-men. It was doubtless furthest 
 from Jefferson Davis's purpose to make confession, and yet he did make a confession. 
 His guilt demanded utterance; that demand he could not resist; therefore his words 
 proclaimed his guilt, in spite of his purpose to conceal it. He said, "if it were to be 
 done, it were better it were well done." Would any man ignorant of the conspiracy be 
 able to devise and fashion such a form of speech as that ? Had not the President been 
 murdered? Had he not reason to believe that the Secretary of State had been mor- 
 tally wounded? Yet he was not satisfied, but was compelled to say, " it were better 
 it were well done " that is to say, all that had been agreed to be done had not been 
 done. Two days afterwards, in his conversation with Breckinridge, he not only repeats 
 the same form of expression, "if it were to be done it were better it were well done," 
 but adds these words: " And if the same had been done to Andy Johnson, the beast, 
 and to Secretary Stanton, the job would then be complete." He would accept the assas- 
 sination of the President, the Vice-President, of the Secretary of State, and the Secre- 
 tary of War, as a complete execution of the "job," which he had given out upon 
 contract, and which he had " made all right," so far as the pay was concerned, by the 
 despatches he had sent to Thompson by Surratt, one of his hired assassins. Whatever 
 may be the conviction of others, my own conviction is that Jefferson Davis is as clearly 
 proven guilty of this conspiracy as is John Wilkes Booth, by whose hand Jefferson 
 Davis inflicted the mortal wound upon Abraham Lincoln. His words of intense hate 
 and rage and disappointment are not to be overlooked that the assassins had not 
 done their work well; that they had not succeeded in robbing the people altogether of 
 their constitutional Executive and his advisers; and hence he exclaims, " If they had 
 killed Andy Johnson, the beast ! " Neither can he conceal his chagrin and disappoint- 
 ment that the war minister of the republic, whose energy, incorruptible integrity, 
 sleepless vigilance, and executive ability had organized day by day, month by month,.
 
 APPENDIX. 371 
 
 and year by year, victory for our arms, had escaped the knife of the hired assassins. 
 The job, says this procurer of assassination, was not well done; it had been better if 
 it had been well done ! Because Abraham Lincoln had been clear in his great office, 
 and had saved the nation's life by enforcing the nation's laws, this traitor declares he 
 must be murdered; because Mr. Seward, as the foreign secretary of the country, had 
 thwarted the purposes of treason to plunge his country into a war with England, he 
 must be murdered; because, upon the murder of Mr. Lincoln, Andrew Johnson would 
 succeed to the presidency, and because he had been true to the Constitution and gov- 
 ernment, faithful found among the faithless of his own State, clinging to the falling 
 pillars of the republic when others had fled, he must be murdered; and because the 
 Secretary of War had taken care, by the faithful discharge of his duties, that the 
 republic should live and not die, he must be murdered. Inasmuch as these two faithful 
 officers were not also assassinated, assuming that the Secretary of State was mortally 
 wounded, Davis could not conceal his disappointment and chagrin that the work was 
 not " well done," that ." the job was not complete ! " 
 
 Thus it appears by the testimony that the proposition made to Davis was to kill and 
 murder the deadliest enemies of the Confederacy not to kidnap them, as is now pre- 
 tended here; that by the declaration of Sanders, Tucker, Thompson, Clay, Cleary, 
 Harper, and Young, the conspirators in Canada, the agreement and combination among 
 them was to kill and murder Abraham Lincoln, William H. Seward, Andrew Johnson, 
 Ulysses S. Grant, Edwin M. Stanton, and others of his advisors, and not to kidnap 
 them; it appears from every utterance of John Wilkes Booth, as well as from the 
 Charles Selby letter, of which mention will presently be made, that, as early as Novem- 
 ber, the proposition with him was to kill and murder, not to kidnap. 
 
 Since the first examination of Conover, who testified, as the court will remember, 
 to many important facts against these conspirators and agents of Davis in Canada 
 among others, the terrible and fiendish plot disclosed by Thompson, Fallen, and others, 
 that they had ascertained the volume of water in the reservoir supplying New York 
 City, estimated the quantity of poison required to render it deadly, and intended thus 
 to poison a whole city Conover returned to Canada, by direction of this court, for 
 the purpose of obtaining certain documentary evidence. There, about the pth of June, 
 he met Beverley Tucker, Sanders, and other conspirators, and conversed with them.- 
 Tucker declared that Secretary Stanton, whom he denounced as " a scoundrel," and 
 Judge Holt, whom he called " a bloodthirsty villain," "could protect themselves as long 
 as they remained in office by a guard, but that would not always be the case, and, by 
 the Eternal, he had a large account to settle with them." After this, the evidence of 
 Conover here having been published, these parties called upon him and asked him 
 whether he had been to Washington and had testified before this court. Conover 
 denied it; they insisted, and took him to a room where, with drawn pistols, they com- 
 pelled him to consent to make an affidavit that he had been falsely personated here by 
 another, and that he would make that affidavit before a Mr. Kerr, who would witness it. 
 They then called in Mr. Kerr to certify to the public that Conover had made such a denial. 
 They also compelled this witness to furnish for publication an advertisement offering a 
 reward of five hundred dollars for the arrest of the " infamous and perjured scoundrel " 
 who had recently personated James W. Wallace under the name of Sanford Conover, 
 and testified to a tissue of falsehoods before the military commission at Washington, 
 which advertisement was published in the papers. 
 
 To these facts Mr. Conover now testifies, and also discloses the fact that these same
 
 3/2 APPENDIX. 
 
 men published, in the report of the proceedings before Judge Smith, an affidavit pur- 
 porting to be his, but which he never made. The affidavit which he in fact made, and 
 which was published in a newspaper at that time, produced here, is set out substantially 
 upon your record, and agrees with the testimony upon the same point given by him in 
 this court. 
 
 To suppose that Conover ever made such an affidavit voluntarily as the one wrung 
 from him as stated is impossible. Would he advertise for his own arrest and charge 
 himself with falsely personating himself? But the fact cannot evade observation, that 
 when these guilty conspirators saw Conover's testimony before this court in the public 
 prints, revealing to the world the atrocious plots of these felon conspirators, conscious 
 of the truthfulness of his statements, they cast about at once for some defense before the 
 public, and devised the foolish and stupid invention of compelling him to make an 
 affidavit that he was not Sanford Conover, was not in this court, never gave this testi- 
 mony, but was a practicing lawyer in Montreal ! This infamous proceeding, coupled 
 with the evidence before detailed, stamps these ruffian plotters with the guilt 01 this 
 conspiracy. 
 
 John Wilkes Booth having entered into this conspiracy in Canada, as has been 
 shown, as early as October, he is next found in the city of New York on the nth day, 
 as I claim, of November, in disguise, in conversation with another, the conversation 
 disclosing to the witness, Mrs. Hudspeth, that they had some matter of personal interest 
 between them; that upon one of them the lot had fallen to go to Washington upon 
 the other to go to New Berne. This witness, upon being shown the photograph of 
 Booth, swears " that the face is the same " as that of one of those men, who, she says, 
 was a young man of education and culture, as appeared by his conversation, and who 
 had a scar like a bite near the jaw-bone. It is a fact proved here by the Surgeon Gen- 
 eral that Booth had such a scar on the side of his neck. Mrs. Hudspeth heard him say 
 he would leave for Washington the day after to-morrow. His companion appeared 
 angry because it had not fallen on him to go to Washington. This took place after the 
 presidential election in November. She cannot fix the precise date, but says she was 
 told that General Butler left New York on that day. The testimony discloses that 
 General Butler's army was on the nth of November leaving New York. The register 
 of the National Hotel shows that Booth left Washington on the early morning train, 
 November n, and that he returned to this city on the I4th. Chester testifies positively 
 to Booth's presence in New York early in November. This testimony shows most con- 
 clusively that Booth was in New York on the nth of November. The early morning 
 train on which he left Washington would reach New York early in the afternoon of 
 that day. Chester saw him there early in November, and Mrs. Hudspeth not only 
 identifies his picture, but describes his person. The scar upon his neck near his jaw 
 was peculiar and is well described by the witness as like a bite. On that day Booth 
 had a letter in his possession which he accidentally dropped in a street car in the pres- 
 ence of Mrs. Hudspeth, the witness, who delivered it to Major General Dix the same 
 day, and by whom, as his letter on file before this court shows, the same was trans- 
 mitted to the War Department, November 17, 1864. That letter contains these words: 
 
 " DEAR Louis: The time has at last come that we have all so wished for, and 
 upon you everything depends. As it was decided, before you left, we were to cast 
 lots, we accordingly did so, and you are to be the Charlotte Corday of the nineteenth 
 century. When you remember the fearful, solemn vow that was taken by us, you will 
 feel there is no drawback. Abe must die, and now. You can choose your weapons
 
 APPENDIX. 373 
 
 the cup, ike knife, tke bullet. The cup failed us once, and might again. Johnson, who 
 will give this, has been like an enraged demon since the meeting, because it has not 
 fallen upon him to rid the world of the monster. . . . You know where to find 
 your friends. Your disguises are so perfect and complete that without one knew your 
 face no police telegraphic despatch would catch you. The English gentleman, liar- 
 court, must not act hastily. Remember, he has ten days. Strike for your home, strike 
 for your country ; bide your time, but strike sure. Get introduced; congratulate him; 
 listen to his stories (not many more will the brute tell to earthly friends); do anything 
 but fail, and meet us at the appointed place within the fortnight. You will probably 
 hear from me in Washington. Sanders is doing us no good in Canada. 
 
 "CHAS. SELBY." 
 
 The learned gentleman (Mr. Cox), in his very able and carefully considered argu- 
 ment in defense of O'Laughlin and Arnold, attached importance to this letter, and 
 doubtless very clearly saw its bearing upon the case, and therefore undertook to show 
 that the witness, Mrs. Hudspeth, must be mistaken as to the person of Booth. The gen- 
 tleman assumes that the letter of General Dix, of the I7th of November last, transmit- 
 ting this letter to the War Department, reads that the party who dropped the letter was 
 heard to say that he would start to Washington on Friday night next, although the 
 word " next " is not in the letter, neither is it in the quotation which the gentleman 
 makes, for he quotes it fairly; yet he concludes that this would be the l8th of November. 
 
 Now the fact is, the nth of November last was Friday, and the register of the 
 National Hotel bears witness that Mrs. Hudspeth is not mistaken; because her language 
 is, that Booth said he would leave for Washington day after to-morrow, which would be 
 Sunday, the I3th, and if in the evening, would bring him to Washington on Monday, 
 the I4th of November, the day on which, the register shows, he did return to the 
 National Hotel. As to the improbability which the gentleman raises, on the conversa- 
 tion happening in a street car, crowded with people, there was nothing that transpired, 
 although the conversation was earnest, which enabled the witness, or could have enabled 
 any one, in the absence of this letter or of the subsequent conduct of Booth, to form 
 the least idea of the subject-matter of their conversation. The gentleman does not 
 deal altogether fairly in his remarks touching the letter of General Dix, because, upon 
 a careful examination of the letter, it will be found that he did not form any such judg- 
 ment as that -it was a hoax for the Sunday Mercury ; but he took care to forward it to 
 the Department, and asked attention to it, when, as appears by the testimony of the 
 Assistant Secretary of War, Mr. Dana, the letter was delivered to Mr. Lincoln, who 
 considered it important enough to indorse it with the word "Assassination," and file it 
 in his office, where it was found after the commission of this crime, and brought into 
 this court to bear witness against his assassins. 
 
 Although this letter would imply that the assassination spoken of was to take place 
 speedily, yet the party was to bide his time. Though he had entered into the prelimi- 
 nary arrangements in Canada, although conspirators had doubtless agreed to co-operate 
 with him in the commission of the crime, and lots had been cast for the chief part in 
 the bloody drama, yet it remained for him, as the leader and principal of the hired 
 assassins, by whose hand their employers were to strike the murderous blow, to collect 
 about him and bring to Washington such persons as would be willing to lend themselves 
 for a price to the horrid crime, and likely to give the necessary aid and support in its 
 consummation. The letter declares that Abraham Lincoln must die, and ncnv, meaning 
 as soon as the agents can be employed and the work done. To that end you will bide 
 your time. But, says the gentleman, it could not have been the same conspiracy
 
 374 ' APPENDIX. 
 
 charged here to which this letter refers. Why not? It is charged here that Booth, 
 with the accused and others, conspired to kill and murder Abraham Lincoln; that is 
 precisely the conspiracy disclosed in the letter. Granted that the parties on trial had 
 not then entered into the combination; if they at any time afterward entered into it 
 they became parties to it, and the conspiracy was still the same. But, says the gentle- 
 man, the words of the letter imply that the conspiracy was to be executed within the 
 fortnight. Booth is directed, by the name of Louis, to meet the writer within the fort- 
 night. It by no mearis follows that he was to strike within the fortnight, because he 
 was to meet his co-conspirator within that time, and any such conclusion is excluded by 
 the words, "Bide your time." Even if the conspiracy was to be executed within the 
 fortnight, and was not so executed, and the same party, Booth, afterwards by concert 
 and agreement with the accused and others, did execute it by " striking sure " and kill- 
 ing the President, that act, whenever done, would be but the execution of the same 
 conspiracy. The letter is conclusive evidence of so much of this conspiracy as relates 
 to the murder of President Lincoln. As Booth was to do anything but fail, he immedi- 
 ately thereafter sought out the agents to enable him to strike sure and execute all that 
 he had agreed with Davis and his co-confederates in Canada to do to murder the 
 President, the Secretary of State, the Vice-President, General Grant, and Secretary 
 Stanton. 
 
 Even Booth's co-conspirator, Payne, now on his trial, by his defense admits all this, 
 and says Booth had just been to Canada, " was filled with a mighty scheme, and was 
 lying in wait for agents." Booth asked the co-operation of the prisoner, Payne, and 
 said: " I will give you as much money as you want; but first you must swear to stick 
 by me. It is in the oil business." This you are told by the accused was early in March 
 last. Thus guilt bears witness against itself. 
 
 We find Booth in New York in November, December, and January, urging Chester 
 to enter into this combination, assuring him that there was money in it; that they had 
 "friends on the- other side "; that if he would only participate in it he would never 
 want for money while he lived, and all that was asked of him was to stand at and open 
 the back door of Ford's Theatre. Booth, in his interviews with Chester, confesses that 
 he is without money himself, and allows Chester to reimburse him the fifty dollars which 
 he (Booth) had transmitted to him in a letter for the purpose of paying his expenses to 
 Washington as one of the parties to this conspiracy. Booth told him, although he him- 
 self was penniless, "there is money in this we have friends on the other side "; and 
 if you will but engage, I will have three thousand dollars deposited at once for the use 
 of your family. 
 
 Failing to secure the services of Chester, because his soul recoiled with abhorrence 
 from the foul work of assassination and murder, he found more willing instruments in 
 others whom he gathered about him. Men to commit the assassinations, horses to 
 secure speedy and certain escape, were to be provided, and to this end Booth, with an 
 energy worthy of a better cause, applies himself. For this latter purpose he told Chester 
 he had already expended five thousand dollars. In the latter part of November, 1864, 
 he visits Charles County, Md., and is in company with one of the prisoners, Dr. 
 Samuel A. Mudd, with whom he lodged over night, and through whom he procures of 
 Gardner one of the several horses which were at his disposal and used by him and his 
 co-conspirators in Washington on the night of the assassination. 
 
 Some time in January last, it is in testimony that the prisoner Mudd introduced 
 Booth to John H. Surratt and the witness Wiechmann; that Booth invited them to the
 
 APPENDIX. 375 
 
 National Hotel; that when there, in the room to which Booth took them, Mudd went out 
 into the passage, called Booth out and had a private conversation with him, leaving the 
 witness and Surratt in the room. Upon their return to the room, Booth went out with 
 Surratt, and upon their coming in, all three Booth, Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd 
 went out together and had a conversation in the passage, leaving the witness alone. 
 Up to the time of this interview it seems that neither the witness nor Surratt had any 
 knowledge of Booth, as they were then introduced to him by Dr. Mudd. Whether 
 Surratt had in fact previously known Booth it is not important to inquire. Mudd 
 deemed it necessary, perhaps a wise precaution, to introduce Surratt to Booth; he also 
 deemed it necessary to have a private conversation with Booth shortly afterwards, and 
 directly upon that to have a conversation together with Booth and Surratt alone. Had 
 this conversation, no part of which was heard by the witness, been perfectly innocent, 
 it is not to be presumed that Dr. Mudd, who was an entire stranger to Wiechmann, 
 would have deemed it necessary to hold the conversation secretly, nor to have volun- 
 teered to tell the witness, or rather pretend to tell him, what the conversation was; yet 
 he did say to the witness, upon their return to the room, by way of apology, I suppose, 
 for the privacy of the conversation, that Booth had some private business with him and 
 wished to purchase his farm. This silly device, as is often the case in attempts at 
 deception, failed in the execution; for it remains to be shown how the fact that Mudd 
 had private business with Booth, and that Booth wished to purchase his farm, made it 
 at all necessary, or even proper, that they should both volunteer to call out Surratt, 
 who, up to that moment, was a stranger to Booth. What had Surratt to do with Booth's 
 purchase of Mudd's farm? And if it was necessary to withdraw and talk by themselves 
 secretly about the sale of the farm, why should they disclose the fact to the very man 
 from whom they had concealed it ? 
 
 Upon the return of these three parties to the room, they seated themselves at a 
 table, and upon the back of an envelope Booth traced lines with a pencil, indicating, 
 as the witness states, the direction of roads. Why was this done? As Booth had been 
 previously in that section of country, as the prisoner in his defense has taken great 
 pains to show, it was certainly not necessary to anything connected with the purchase 
 of Mudd's farm that at that time he should be indicating the direction of roads to or 
 from it; nor is it made to appear, by anything in this testimony, how it comes that 
 Surratt, as the witness testifies, seemed to be as much interested in the marking out of 
 these roads as Mudd or Booth. It does not appear that Surratt was in any wise con- 
 nected with or interested in the sale of Mudd's farm. From all that has transpired 
 since this meeting at the hotel, it would seem that this plotting the roads was intended, 
 not so much to show the road to Mudd's farm, as to point out the shortest and safest 
 route for flight from the capital, by the houses of all the parties to this conspiracy, to 
 their " friends on the other side." 
 
 But, says the learned gentleman (Mr. Ewing), in his very able argument in defense 
 of this prisoner, why should Booth determine that his flight should be through Charles 
 County? The answer must be obvious, upon a moment's reflection, to every man, and 
 could not possibly have escaped the notice of the counsel himself, but for the reason 
 that his zeal for his client constrained him to overlook it. It was absolutely essential 
 that this murderer should have his co-conspirators at convenient points along his route, 
 and it does not appear in evidence that by the route to his friends, who had then fled 
 from Richmond, which the gentleman (Mr. Ewing) indicates as the more direct, but of 
 which there is not the slightest evidence whatever, Booth had co-conspirators at an
 
 3/6 APPENDIX. 
 
 equal distance from Washington. The testimony discloses, further, that on the route 
 selected by him for his flight there is a large population that would be most likely to 
 favor and aid him in the execution of his wicked purpose and in making his escape. 
 But it is a sufficient answer to the gentleman's question that Booth's co-conspirator, 
 Mudd, lived in Charles County. 
 
 To return to the meeting at the hotel. In the light of other facts in this case, it 
 must become clear to the court that this secret meeting between Booth, Surratt, and 
 Mudd was a conference looking to the execution of this conspiracy. It so impressed 
 the prisoner it so impressed his counsel, that they deemed it necessary and absolutely 
 essential to their defense to attempt to destroy the credibility of the witness Wiechmann. 
 
 I may say here, in passing, that they have not attempted to impeach his general 
 reputation for truth by the testimony of a single witness, nor have they impeached his 
 testimony by calling a single witness to discredit one material fact to which he has testi- 
 fied in this issue. Failing to find a breath of suspicion against Wiechmann's character, 
 or to contradict a single fact to which he testified, the accused had to fly to the last 
 resort, an alibi, and very earnestly did the learned counsel devote himself to the task. 
 
 It is not material whether this meeting in the hotel took place on the 23d of Decem- 
 ber or in January. But, says the counsel, it was after the commencement or close of 
 the Congressional holiday. That is not material; but the concurrent resolution of Con- 
 gress shows that the holiday commenced on the 22d of December, the day before the 
 accused spent the evening in Washington. The witness is not certain about the date of 
 this meeting. The material fact is, did this meeting take place either on the 23d of 
 December or in January last? Were the private interviews there held, and was the 
 apology made, as detailed, by Mudd and Booth, after the secret conference, to the 
 witness? That the meeting did take place, and that Mudd did explain that these secret 
 interviews, with Booth first, and with Booth and Surratt directly afterward, had relation 
 to the sale of his farm, is confessedly admitted by the endeavor of the prisoner, through 
 his counsel, to show that negotiations had been going on between Booth and Mudd for 
 the sale of Mudd's farm. If no such meeting was held, if no such explanation was 
 made by Mudd to Wiechmann, can any man for a moment believe that a witness would 
 have been called here to give any testimony about Booth having negotiated for Mudd's 
 farm? What conceivable connection has it with this case, except to show that Mudd's 
 explanation to Wiechmann for his extraordinary conduct was in exact accordance with 
 the fact? Or was this testimony about the negotiations for Mudd's farm intended to 
 show so close an intimacy and intercourse with Booth that Mudd could not fail to rec- 
 ognize him when he came flying for aid to his house from the work of assassination? 
 It would be injustice to the able counsel to suppose that. 
 
 I have said that it was wholly immaterial whether this conversation took place on 
 the 23d of December or in January; it is in evidence that in both these months Booth 
 was at the National Hotel; that he occupied a room there; that he arrived there on the 
 22d and was there on the 23d of December last, and also on the I2th day of January. 
 The testimony of the witness is, that Booth said he had just come in. Suppose this 
 conversation took place in December, on the evening of the 23d, the time when it is 
 proved by J. T. Mudd, the witness for the accused, that he, in company with Samuel 
 A. Mudd, spent the night in Washington City. Is there anything in the testimony of 
 that or any other witness to show that the accused did not have and could not have had 
 an interview with Booth on that evening? J. T. Mudd testifies that he separated from 
 the prisoner, Samuel A. Mudd, at the National Hotel early in the evening of that day,
 
 APPENDIX, 377 
 
 and did not meet him again until the accused came in for the night at the Pennsylvania 
 House, where he stopped. Where was Dr. Samuel A. Mudd during this interval? 
 What does his witness know about him during that time? How can he say that Dr. 
 Mudd did not go up on Seventh Street in company with Booth, then at the National; 
 that he did not on Seventh Street meet Surratt and Wiechmann; that he did not return 
 to the National Hotel; that he did not have this interview, and afterwards meet him, the 
 witness, as he testifies, at the Pennsylvania House? Who knows that the Congressional 
 holiday had not in fact commenced on that day ? What witness has been called to prove 
 that Booth did not on either of those occasions occupy the room that had formerly been 
 occupied by a member of Congress, who had temporarily vacated it, leaving his books 
 there? Wiechmann, I repeat, is not positive as to the date, he is only positive as to 
 the fact; and he disclosed voluntarily to this court that the date could probably be fixed 
 by a reference to the register of the Pennsylvania House; that register cannot, of 
 course, be conclusive of whether Mudd was there in January or not, for the very good 
 reason that the proprietor admits that he did not know Samuel A. Mudd, therefore 
 Mudd might have registed by any other name. Wiechmann does not pretend to know 
 that Mudd had registered at all. If Mudd was here in January, as a party to this con- 
 spiracy, it is not at all unlikely that, if he did register at that time in the presence of a 
 man to whom he was wholly unknown, his kinsman not then being with him, he would 
 register by a false name. But if the interview took place in December, the testimony 
 of Wiechmann bears as strongly against the accused as if it had happened in January. 
 Wiechmann says he does not know what time was occupied in this interview at the 
 National Hotel; that it probably 'lasted twenty minutes; that, after the private inter- 
 views between Mudd and Surratt and Booth, which were not of very long duration, 
 had terminated, the parties went to the Pennsylvania House, where Dr. Mudd had 
 rooms, and after sitting together in the common sitting-room of the hotel, they left Dr. 
 Mudd there about ten o'clock P.M., who remained during the night. Wiechmann's 
 testimony leaves no doubt that this meeting on Seventh Street and interview at the 
 National took place after dark, and terminated before or about ten o'clock P.M. His 
 own witness, J. T. Mudd, after stating that he separated from the accused at the 
 National Hotel, says after he had got through a conversation with a gentleman of his 
 acquaintance, he walked down the Avenue, went to several clothing stores, and " after 
 awhile" walked round to the Pennsylvania House, and "very soon after" he got 
 there Dr. Mudd came in, and they went to bed shortly afterwards. What time he 
 spent in his "walk alone" on the Avenue, looking at clothing; what period he 
 embraces in the terms "after a while," when he returned to the Pennsylvania House, 
 and "soon after" which Dr. Mudd got there, the witness does not disclose. Neither 
 does he intimate, much less testify, that he saw Dr. Mudd when he first entered the 
 Pennsylvania House on that night after their separation. How does he. know that Booth 
 and Surratt and Wiechmann did not accompany Samuel A. Mudd to that house that 
 evening? How does he know that the prisoner and those persons did not converse 
 together some time in the sitting-room of the Pennsylvania Hotel ? Jeremiah Mudd 
 has not testified that he met Dr. Mudd in that room, or that he was in it himself. He 
 has, however, sworn to the fact, which is disproved by no one, that the prisoner was 
 separated from him long enough that evening to have had the meeting with Booth, 
 Surratt, and Wiechmann, and the interviews in the National Hotel, and at the Pennsyl- 
 vania House, to which Wiechmann has testified? Who is there to disprove it? Of 
 what importance is it whether it was on the 23d day of December or in January? How
 
 3 /S APPENDIX. 
 
 does that affect the credibility of Wiechmann? He is a man, as I have before said, 
 against whose reputation for truth and good conduct they have not been able to bring 
 one witness. If this meeting did by possibility take place that night, is there anything 
 to render it improbable that Booth and Mudd and Surratt did have the conversation at 
 the National Hotel to which Wiechmann testifies? Of what avail, therefore, is the 
 attempt to prove that Mudd was not here during January, if it was clear that he was 
 here on the 23d of December, 1864, and had this conversation with Booth? That this 
 attempt to prove an alibi during January has failed, is quite as clear as is the proof of 
 the fact that the prisoner was here on the evening of the 23d of December, and present 
 in the National Hotel, where Booth stopped. The fact that the prisoner, Samuel A. 
 Mudd, went with J. T. Mudd on that evening to the National Hotel, and there sepa- 
 rated from him, is proved by his own witness, J. T. Mudd; and that he did not rejoin 
 him until they retired to bed in the Pennsylvania House is proved by the same witness 
 and contradicted by nobody. Does any one suppose there would have been such 
 assiduous care to prove that the prisoner was with his kinsman all the time on the 23d 
 of December, in Washington, if they had not known that Booth was then at the 
 National Hotel, and that a meeting of the prisoner with Booth, Surratt, and Wiech- 
 mann on that day would corroborate and confirm Wiechmann's testimony in every 
 material statement he made concerning that meeting? 
 
 The accused having signally failed to account for his absence after he separated from 
 his witness, J. T. Mudd, early in the evening of the 23d of December, at the National 
 Hotel, until they had again met at the Pennsylvania House, when they retired to rest, 
 he now attempts to prove an alibi as to the month of January. In this he has failed, 
 as he failed in the attempt to show that he could not have met Booth, Surratt, and 
 Wiechmann on the 23d of December. 
 
 For this purpose the accused calls Betty Washington. She had been at Mudd's 
 house every night since the Monday after Christmas last, except when here at court, 
 and says that the prisoner, Mudd, has only been away from home three nights during 
 that time. This witness forgets that Mudd has not been at home any night or day since 
 this court assembled. Neither does she account for the three nights in which she swears 
 to his absence from home. First, she says he went to Gardner's party; second, he 
 went to Giesboro, then to Washington. She does not know in what month he was 
 away, the second time, all night. She only knows where he went from what he and 
 his wife said, which is not evidence; but she does testify that when he left home and 
 was absent over night the second time, it was about two or three weeks after she came 
 to his house, which would, if it were three weeks, make it just about the I5th of Jan- 
 uary, 1865; because she swears she came to his house on the first Monday after Christ- 
 mas last, which was the 26th day of December; so that the I5th of January would be 
 three weeks, less one day, from that time; and it might have been a week' earlier 
 according to her testimony, as, also, it might have been a week earlier, or more, by 
 Wiechmann's testimony, for he is not positive as to the time. What I have said of the 
 register of the Pennsylvania House, the headquarters of Mudd and Atzerodt, I need 
 not here repeat. That record proves nothing, save that Dr. Mudd was there on the 
 23d of December, which, as we have seen, is a fact, along with others, to show that 
 the meeting at the National then took place. I have also called the attention of the 
 court to the fact that if Mudd was at that house again in January, and did not register 
 his name, that fact proves nothing; or, if he did, the register only proves that he regis- 
 tered falsely; either of which facts might have happened without the knowledge of the
 
 APPENDIX. 379 
 
 -witness called by the accused from that house, who does not know Samuel A. Mudd 
 personally. 
 
 The testimony of Henry L. Mudd, his brother, in support of this alibi, is, that the 
 prisoner was in Washington on the 23d of March, and on the loth of April, four days 
 before the murder ! But he does not account for the absent night in January, about 
 which Betty Washington testifies. Thomas Davis was called for the same purpose, but 
 stated that he was himself absent one night in January, after the gth of that month, 
 and he could not say whether Mudd was there on that night or not. He does testify to 
 Mudd's absence over night three times, and fixes one occasion on the night of the 26th 
 of January. In consequence of his own absence one night in January, this witness 
 cannot account for the absence of Mudd on the night referred to by Betty Washington. 
 
 This matter is entitled to no further attention. It can satisfy no one, and the burden 
 of proof is upon the prisoner to prove that he was not in Washington in January last. 
 How can such testimony convince any rational man that Mudd was not here in January, 
 against the evidence of an unimpeached witness, who swears that Samuel A. Mudd was 
 in Washington in the month of January? Who that has been examined here as a 
 witness knows that he was not? 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Evans swears that he saw him in Washington last winter, and that at 
 the same time he saw Jarboe, the one coming out of, and the other going into, a house 
 on H Street, which he was informed on inquiry was the house of Mrs. Surratt. Jarboe 
 is the only witness called to contradict Mr. Evans, and he leaves it in extreme doubt 
 whether he does not corroborate him, as he swears that he was here himself last winter 
 or fall, but cannot state exactly the time. Jarboe's silence on questions touching his 
 own credibility leaves no room for any one to say that his testimony could impeach 
 Mr. Evans, whatever he might swear. 
 
 Miss Anna H. Surratt is also called for the purpose of impeaching Mr. Evans. It 
 is sufficient to say of her testimony on that point that she swears negatively only that 
 she does not see either of the persons named at her mother's house. This testimony 
 neither disproves, nor does it even tend to disprove, the fact put in issue by Mr. Evans. 
 No one will pretend, whatever the form of her expression in giving her testimony, that 
 she could say more than that she did not know the fact, as it was impossible that she 
 could know who was, or who was not, at her mother's house, casually, at a period so 
 remote. It is not my purpose, neither is it needful here, to question in any way the 
 integrity of this young woman. 
 
 It is further in testimony that Samuel A. Mudd was here on the 3d day of March 
 last, the day preceding the inauguration, when Booth was to strike the traitorous blow; 
 and it was, doubtless, only by the interposition of that God who stands within the 
 shadow and keeps watch above his own, that the victim of this conspiracy was spared 
 that day from the assassin's hand that he might complete his work and see the salvation 
 of his country in the fall of Richmond and the surrender of its great army. Dr. Mudd 
 was here on that day (the 3d of March) to abet, to encourage, to nerve his co-conspira- 
 tor for the commission of this great crime. He was carried away by the awful purpose 
 which possessed him, and rushed into the room of Mr. Norton, at the National Hotel, in 
 search of Booth, exclaiming excitedly: " I'm mistaken; I thought this was Mr. Booth's 
 room." He is told Mr. Booth is above, on the next floor. He is followed by Mr. 
 Norton, because of his rude and excited behavior, and being followed, conscious of his 
 guilty errand, he turns away, afraid of himself and afraid to be found in concert with 
 his fellow confederate. Mr. Norton identifies the prisoner, and has no doubt that 
 Samuel A. Mudd is the man.
 
 380 APPENDIX. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Evans also swears that, after the 1st and before the 4th day of March 
 last, he is certain that within that time, and on the 2d or 3d of March, he saw Dr. Mudd 
 drive into Washington City. The endeavor is made by the accused in order to break 
 down this witness, by proving another alibi. The sister of the accused, Miss Fanny 
 Mudd, is called. She testifies that she saw the prisoner at breakfast in her father's 
 house, on the 2d of March, about five o'clock in the morning, and not again until the 
 3d of March at noon. Mrs. Emily Mudd swears substantially to the same statement. 
 Betty Washington, called for the accused, swears that he was at home all day at work 
 with her on the 2d of March, and took breakfast at home. Frank Washington swears 
 that Mudd was at home all day; that he saw him when he first came out in the morning 
 about sunrise from his own house, and knows that he was there all day with them. 
 Which is correct, the testimony of his sisters or the testimony of his servants? The 
 sisters say that he was at their father's house for breakfast on the morning of the 2d of 
 March; the servants say he was at home for breakfast with them on that day. If this 
 testimony is followed, it proves one alibi too much. It is impossible, in the nature of 
 things, that the testimony of all these four witnesses can be true. 
 
 Seeing this weakness in the testimony brought to prove this second alibi, the 
 endeavor is next made to discredit Mr. Norton for truth; and two witnesses, not more, 
 are called, who testify that his reputation for truth has suffered by contested litigation 
 between one of the impeaching witnesses and others. Four witnesses are called, who 
 testify that Mr. Norton's reputation for truth is very good; that he is a man of high 
 character for truth, and entitled to be believed whether he speaks under the obligation 
 of an oath or not. The late Postmaster General, Hon. Horatio King, not only sustains 
 Mr. Norton as a man of good reputation for truth, but expressly corroborates his testi- 
 mony, by stating that in March last, about the 4th of March, Mr. Norton told him the 
 same fact to which he swears here: that a man came into his room under excitement, 
 alarmed his sister, was followed out by himself, and went down stairs instead of going 
 up; and that Mr. Norton told him this before the assassination, and about the time of the 
 inauguration. What motive had Mr. Norton at that time to fabricate this statement? 
 It detracts nothing from his testimony that he did not at that time mention the name of 
 this man to his friend, Mr. King; because it appears from his testimony and there is 
 none to question the truthfulness of his statement that at that time he did not know 
 his name. Neither does it take from the force of this testimony, that Mr. Norton did 
 not, in communicating this matter to Mr. King, make mention of Booth's name; 
 because there was nothing in the transaction, at the time, he being ignorant of the name 
 of Mudd, and equally ignorant of the conspiracy between Mudd and Booth, to give the 
 least occasion for any mention of Booth or of the transaction further than as he detailed 
 it. With such corroboration, who can doubt the fact that Mudd did enter the room of 
 Mr. Norton, and was followed by him, on the 3d of March last? Can he be mistaken 
 in the man? Whoever looks at the prisoner carefully once will be sure to recognize 
 him again. 
 
 For the present I pass from the consideration of the testimony showing Dr. Mudd's 
 connection with Booth in this conspiracy, with the remark that it is in evidence, and I 
 think established, both by the testimony adduced by the prosecution and that by the 
 prisoner, that since the commencement of this rebellion, John H. Surratt visited the 
 prisoner's house; that he concealed Surratt and other rebels and traitors in the woods 
 near his house, where for several days he furnished them with food and bedding; that 
 the shelter of the woods by night ;md by day was the only shelter that the prisoner dare
 
 APPENDIX. 381 
 
 furnish these friends of his; that in November, Booth visited him and remained over 
 night; that he accompanied Booth at that time to Gardner's, from whom he purchased 
 one of the horses used on the night of the assassination to aid the escape of one of his 
 confederates; that the prisoner had secret interviews with Booth and Surratt, as sworn 
 to by the witness Wiechmann, in the National Hotel, whether on the ajd of December 
 or in January is a matter of entire indifference; that he rushed into Mr. Norton's room 
 on the 3d of March in search of Booth; and that he was here again on the loth of 
 April, four days before the murder of the President. Of his conduct after the assassina- 
 tion of the President, which is confirmatory of all this his conspiring with Booth and 
 his sheltering, concealing, and aiding the flight of his co-conspirator, this felon assassin 
 I shall speak hereafter, leaving him for the present with the remark that the attempt 
 to prove his character has resulted in showing him in sympathy with the rebellion, so 
 cruel that he shot one of his slaves and declared his purpose to send several of them to 
 work on the rebel batteries in Richmond. 
 
 What others, besides Samuel A. Mudd and John H. Surratt and Lewis Payne, did 
 Booth, after his return from Canada, induce to join him in this conspiracy to murder the 
 President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, and the Lieutenant General, with 
 the intent thereby to aid the rebellion and overthrow the government and laws of the 
 United States? 
 
 On the loth of February the prisoners Arnold and O'Laughlin came to Washington 
 and took rooms in the house of Mrs. Vantyne; were armed; were then visited 
 frequently by John Wilkes Booth, and alone; were occasionally absent when Booth 
 called, who seemed anxious for their return would sometimes leave notes for them, 
 and sometimes a request that when they came in they should be told to come to the 
 stable. On the i8th of March last, when Booth played in "The Apostate," the 
 witness, Mrs. Vantyne, received from O'Laughlin complimentary tickets. These 
 persons remained there until the 2oth of March. They were visited, so far as the 
 witness knows, during their stay at her house only by Booth, save that on a single 
 occasion an unknown man came to see them, and remained with them over night. 
 They told the witness they were in the " oil business." With Mudd, the guilty purpose 
 was sought to be concealed by declaring that he was in the "land business"; with 
 O'Laughlin and Arnold it was attempted to be concealed by the pretence that they 
 were in the " oil business." Booth, it is proved, had closed up all connection with oil 
 business last September. There is not a word of testimony to show that the accused, 
 O'Laughlin and Arnold, ever invested or sought to invest, in any way or to any 
 amount, in the oil business; their silly words betray them; they forgot when they 
 uttered that false statement that truth is strong, next to the Almighty, and that their 
 crime must find them out was the irrevocable and irresistible law of nature and of 
 nature's God. 
 
 One of their co-conspirators, known as yet only to the guilty parties to this damnable 
 plot and to the Infinite, who will unmask and avenge all blood-guiltiness, comes to bear 
 witness, unwittingly, against them. This unknown conspirator, who dates his letter at 
 South Branch Bridge, April 6, 1865, mailed and postmarked Cumberland, Md., and 
 addressed to John Wilkes Booth, by his initials, " J. W. B., National Hotel, Washing- 
 ton, D.C.," was also in the " oil speculation." In that letter he says: 
 
 " FRIEND WILKES: I received yours of March I2th, and reply as soon as practica- 
 ble. I saw French, Brady, and others about the oil speculation. The subscription to 
 the stock amounts to eight thousand dollars, and I add one thousand myself, which is
 
 382 APPENDIX. 
 
 about all I can stand. Now, when you sink your well, go deep enough; don't fail,- 
 everything depends upon you and your helpers. If you cannot get through on your trip 
 after you strike oil, strike through Thornton gap and across by Capon, Romney, and 
 down the Branch. I can keep you safe from all hardships for a year. I am clear of 
 all surveillance now that infernal Purdy is beat. . . 
 
 " I send this by Tom, and if he don't get drunk you will get it the Qth. At all 
 events, it cannot be understood 'if lost. . . . 
 
 " No more, only Jake will be at Green's with the funds. (Signed) " LON." 
 
 That this letter is not a fabrication is made apparent by the testimony of Purdy, 
 whose name occurs in the letter. He testified that he had been a detective in the gov- 
 ernment service, and that he had been falsely accused, as the letter recites, and put 
 under arrest; that there was a noted rebel, by the name of Green, living at Thornton 
 gap; that there was a servant, who drank, known as "Tom," in the neighborhood of 
 South Branch Bridge; that there is an obscure route through the gap, and as described 
 in the letter; and that a man commonly called " Lon " lives at South Branch Bridge. 
 If the court are satisfied and it is for them to judge that this letter was written 
 before the assassination, as it purports to have been, and on the day of its date, there 
 can be no question with any one who reads it that the writer was in the conspiracy, 
 and knew that the time of its execution drew nigh. If a conspirator, every word of 
 its contents is evidence against every other party to this conspiracy. 
 
 Who can fail to understand this letter? His words, "go deep enough," "don't 
 fail," " everything depends on you and your helpers," "if you can't get through on 
 your trip after you strike oil, strike through Thornton gap," etc., and " I can keep you 
 safe from all hardships for a year," necessarily imply that when he " strikes oil" there 
 will be an occasion for a flight ; that a trip, or route, has already been determined 
 upon; that he may not be able to go through by that route; in which event he is to 
 strike for Thornton gap, and across by Capon and Romney, and down the branch, for 
 the shelter which his co-conspirator offers him. " I am clear of all serveillance now " 
 does any one doubt that the man who wrote those words wished to assure Booth that 
 he was no longer watched, and that Booth could safely hide with him from his pursuers? 
 Does any one doubt, from the further expression in this letter, " Jake will be at Green's 
 with the funds," that this was a part of the price of blood, or that the eight thousand 
 dollars subscribed by others, and the one thousand additional, subscribed by the writer, 
 were also a part of the price to be paid? 
 
 " The oil business, " which was the declared business of O'Laughlin and Arnold, 
 was the declared business of the infamous writer of this letter; was the declared busi- 
 ness of John H. Surratt; was the declared business of Booth himself, as explained to 
 Chester and Payne; was " the business " referred to in his telegrams to O'Laughlin, and 
 meant the murder of the President, of his cabinet, and of General Grant. The first of 
 these telegrams is dated Washington, I3th March, and is addressed to M. O'Laughlin, 
 No. 57 North Exeter Street, Baltimore, Md., and is as follows: "Don't you fear to 
 neglect your business; you had better come on at once. J. Booth." The tele- 
 graphic operator, Hoffman, who sent this despatch from Washington, swears that John 
 Wilkes Booth delivered it to him in person on the day of its date; and the handwriting 
 of the original telegram is established beyond question to be that of Booth. The other 
 telegram is dated Washington, March 27, addressed, " M. O'Laughlin, Esq., 57 North 
 Exeter Street, Baltimore, Md.," and is as follows: " Get word to Sam. Come on with 
 or without him on Wednesday morning. We sell that day sure; don't fail. J. Wilkes 
 Booth." The original of this telegram is also proved to be in the handwriting of
 
 APPENDIX. 383; 
 
 Booth. The sale referred to in this last telegram was doubtless the murder of the 
 President and others the "oil speculation," in which the writer of the letter from 
 South Branch Bridge, dated April 6, had taken a thousand dollars, and in which Booth 
 said there was money, and Sanders said there was money, and Atzerodt said there was 
 money. The words of this telegram, "get word to Sam," mean Samuel Arnold, his 
 co-conspirator, who had been with him during all his stay in Washington, at Mrs. Van- 
 tyne's. These parties to this conspiracy, after they had gone to Baltimore, had addi- 
 tional correspondence with Booth, which the court must infer had relation to carrying 
 out the purposes of their confederation and agreement. The colored witness, Williams, 
 testifies that John Wilkes Booth handed him a letter for Michael O'Laughlin, and another 
 for Samuel Arnold, in Baltimore, some time in March last; one of which he delivered 
 to O'Laughlin at the theatre in Baltimore, and the other to a lady at the door where 
 Arnold boarded in Baltimore. 
 
 Their agreement and co-operation in the common object having been thus estab- 
 lished, the letter written to Booth by the prisoner Arnold, dated March 27, 1865, the 
 handwriting of which is proved before the court, and which was found in Booth's pos- 
 session after the assassination, becomes testimony against O'Laughlin, as well as against 
 the writer Arnold, because it is an act done in furtherance of their combination. That 
 letter is as follows : 
 
 " DEAR JOHN: Was business so important that you could not remain in Baltimore 
 till I saw you? I came in as soon as I could, but found you had gone to Washington. 
 I called also to see Mike, but learned from his mother he had gone out with you and 
 had not returned. I concluded, therefore, he had gone with you. How inconsiderate 
 you have been ! When I left you, you stated that we would not meet in a month or so, 
 and therefore I made application for employment, an answer to which I shall receive 
 during the week. I told my parents I had ceased with you. Can I, then, under exist- 
 ing circumstances, act as you request? You know full well that the government 
 suspicions something is going on there, therefore the undertaking is becoming more 
 complicated. Why not, for the present, desist? for various reasons, which, if you 
 look into, you can readily see without my making any mention thereof. You, nor any 
 one, can censure me for my present course. You have been its cause, for how can I 
 now come after telling them I had left you? Suspicion rests upon me now from my 
 whole family, and even parties in the country. I will be compelled to leave home any 
 how, and how soon I care not. None, no, not one, were more in favor of the enter- 
 prise than myself, and to-day would be there had you not done as you have. By this I 
 mean manner of proceeding. I am, as you well know, in need. I am, you may say,, 
 in rags, whereas, to-day, I ought to be well clothed. I do not feel right stalking about 
 with means, and more from appearances a beggar. I feel my dependence. But even 
 all this would have been, and was, forgotten, for I was one with you. Time more pro- 
 pitious will arrive yet. Do not act rashly or in haste. I would prefer your first query,. 
 ' Go and see how it will be taken in Richmond,' and ere long I shall be better prepared 
 to again be with you. I dislike writing. Would sooner verbally make known my views. 
 Yet your now waiting causes me thus to proceed. Do not in anger peruse this. Weigh 
 all I have said, and, as a rational man and a friend, you cannot censure or upbraid my 
 conduct. I sincerely trust this, nor aught else that shall or may occur, will ever be an 
 obstacle to obliterate our former friendship and attachment. Write me to Baltimore,, 
 as I expect to be in about Wednesday or Thursday; or, if you can possibly come on, I 
 will Tuesday meet you at Baltimore at B. 
 
 " Ever I subscribe myself, your friend, "SAM." 
 
 Here is the confession of the prisoner Arnold, that he was one with Booth in this 
 conspiracy; the further confession that they are suspected by the government of their 
 country, and the acknowledgment that since they parted Booth had communicated, 
 among other things, a suggestion which leads to the remark in this letter, " I would
 
 384 APPENDIX. 
 
 prefer your first query, ' Go and see how it will be taken at Richmond,' and ere long I 
 shall be better prepared to again be with you." This is a declaration that affects Arnold, 
 Booth, and O'Laughlin alike, if the court are satisfied, and it is difficult to see how they 
 can have doubt on the subject, that the matter to be referred to Richmond is the matter 
 of the assassination of the President and others, to effect which these parties had pre- 
 viously agreed and conspired together. It is a matter in testimony, by the declaration 
 of John H. Surratt, who is as clearly proved to have been in this conspiracy and murder 
 as Booth himself, that about the very date of this letter, the 27th of March, upon the 
 suggestion of Booth, and with his knowledge and consent, he went to Richmond, not 
 only to see "how it would be taken there," but to get funds with which to carry out 
 the enterprise, as Booth had already declared to Chester in one of his last interviews, 
 when he said that he or " some one of the party " would be constrained to go to Rich- 
 mond for funds to carry out the conspiracy. Surratt returned from Richmond, bringing 
 with him some part of the money for which he went, and was then going to Canada, 
 and, as the testimony discloses, bringing with him the despatches from Jefferson Davis 
 to his chief agents in Canada, which, as Thompson declared to Conover, made the 
 proposed assassination " all right." Surratt, after seeing the parties here, left imme- 
 diately for Canada and delivered his despatches to Jacob Thompson, the agent of 
 Jefferson Davis. This was done by Surratt upon the suggestion, or in exact accordance 
 with the suggestion, of Arnold, made on the 27th of March in his letter to Booth just 
 read, and yet you are gravely told that four weeks before the 27th of March Arnold 
 had abandoned the conspiracy. 
 
 Surratt reached Canada with these despatches, as we have seen, about the 6th or 7th 
 of April last, when the witness Conover saw them delivered to Jacob Thompson and 
 heard their contents stated by Thompson, and the declaration from him that these 
 despatches made it "all right." That Surratt was at that time in Canada is not 
 only established by the testimony of Conover, but it is also in evidence that he told 
 Wiechmann on the jd of April that he was going to Canada, and on that day left for 
 Canada, and afterwards, two letters addressed by Surratt over the fictitious signature of 
 John Harrison, to his mother and to Miss Ward, dated at Montreal, were received by 
 them on the I4th of April, as testified by Wiechmann and by Miss Ward, a witness 
 called for the defense. Thus it appears that the condition named by Arnold in his 
 letter had been complied with'. Booth had "gone to Richmond," in the person of 
 Surratt, "to see how it would be taken." The rebel authorities at Richmond had 
 approved it, the agent had returned; and Arnold was, in his own words, thereby the 
 better prepared to rejoin Booth in the prosecution of this conspiracy. 
 
 To this end Arnold went to Fortress Monroe. As his letter expressly declares, 
 Booth said when they parted, " we would not meet in a month or so, and therefore I 
 made application for employment an answer to which I shall receive during the week." 
 He did receive the answer that week from Fortress Monroe, and went there to await 
 the "more propitious time," bearing with him the weapon of death which Booth had 
 provided, and ready to obey his call, as the act had been approved at Richmond and 
 been made " all right." Acting upon the same fact that the conspiracy had been 
 approved in Richmond and the funds provided, O'Laughlin came to Washington to 
 identify General Grant, the person who was to become the victim of his violence in the 
 final consummation of this crime General Grant, whom, as is averred in the specifi- 
 cation, it had become the part of O'Laughlin by his agreement in this conspiracy to kill 
 and murder. On the evening preceding the assassination the 1 3th of April by the
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 385 
 
 testimony of three reputable witnesses, against whose truthfulness not one word is 
 uttered here or elsewhere, O'Laughlin went into the house of the Secretary of War, 
 where General Grant then was, and placed himself in position in the hall where he 
 could see him, having declared before he reached that point, to one of these witnesses, 
 that he wished to see General Grant. The house was brilliantly illuminated at the time; 
 two, at least, of the witnesses conversed with the accused and the other stood very near 
 to him, took special notice of his conduct, called attention to it, and suggested that he 
 be put out of the house, and he was accordingly put out by one of the witnesses. These 
 witnesses are confident, and have no doubt, and so swear upon their oaths, that Michael 
 O'Laughlin is the man who was present on that occasion. There is no denial on the 
 part of the accused that he was in Washington during the day and during the night of 
 April 13, and also during the day and during the night of the I4th; and yet, to get rid 
 of this testimony, recourse is had to that common device an alibi; a device never, 
 I may say, more frequently resorted to than in this trial. But what an alibi ! Nobody 
 is called to prove it, save some men who, by their own testimony, were engaged in 
 a drunken debauch through the evening. A reasonable man who reads their evidence 
 can hardly be expected to allow it to outweigh the united testimony of three unimpeached 
 and unimpeachable witnesses who were clear in their statements, who entertain no doubt 
 of the truth of what they say, whose opportunities to know were full and complete, and 
 who were constrained to take special notice of the prisoner by means of his extraordi- 
 nary conduct. 
 
 These witnesses describe accurately the appearance, stature, and complexion of the 
 accused, but because they describe his clothing as dark or black, it is urged that as part 
 of his clothing, although dark, was not black, the witnesses are jnistaken. O'Laughlin 
 and his drunken companions (one of whom swears that he drank ten times that even- 
 ing) were strolling in the streets and in the direction of the house of the Secretary of 
 War, up the Avenue; but you are asked to believe that these witnesses could not be 
 mistaken in saying they were not off the Avenue above Seventh Street, or on K Street. 
 I venture to say that no man who reads their testimony can determine satisfactorily all 
 the places that were visited by O'Laughlin and his drunken associates that evening 
 *rom seven to eleven o'clock P.M. All this time, from seven to eleven o'clock P.M., 
 must be accounted for satisfactorily before the alibi can be established. Laughlan does 
 not account for all the time, for he left O'Laughlin after seven o'clock, and rejoined 
 him, as he says, "I suppose about eight o'clock." Grillet did not meet him until 
 half-past ten, and then only casually saw him in passing the hotel. May not Grillet 
 have been mistaken as to the fact, although he did meet O'Laughlin after eleven 
 o'clock the same evening, as he swears? 
 
 Purdy swears to seeing him in the bar with Grillet about half-past ten, but, as we 
 have seen by Grillet's testimony, it must have been after -eleven o'clock. Murphy 
 contradicts as to time both Grillet and Purdy, for he says it was half-past eleven or 
 twelve o'clock when he and O'Laughlin returned to Rullman's from Platz's, and Early 
 swears the accused went from Rullman's to Second Street to a dance about a quarter- 
 past eleven o'clock, when O'Laughlin took the lead in the dance and stayed about one 
 hour. I follow these witnesses no further. They contradict each other, and do not 
 account for O'Laughlin all the time from seven to eleven o'clock. I repeat that no 
 man can read their testimony without finding contradictions most material as to time, 
 and coming to the conviction that they utterly fail to account for O'Laughlin's where- 
 abouts on that evening. To establish an alibi the witnesses must know the fact and
 
 386 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 testify to it. Laughlan, Grillet, Purdy, Murphy, and Early utterly fail to prove it, and 
 only succeed in showing that they did not know where O'Laughlin was all this time, 
 and that some of them were grossly mistaken in what they testified, both as to time ami 
 place. The testimony of James B. Henderson is equally unsatisfactory. He is contra- 
 dicted by other testimony of the accused as to place. He says O'Laughlin went up the 
 Avenue above Seventh Street, but that he did not go to Ninth Street. The other wit- 
 nesses swear he went to Ninth Street. He swears he went to Canterbury about nine 
 o'clock, after going back from Seventh Street to Rullman's. Laughlan swears that 
 O'Laughlin was with him at the corner of the Avenue and Ninth Street at nine o'clock, 
 and went from there to Canterbury, while Early swears that O'Laughlin went up as far 
 as Eleventh Street and returned with him and took supper at Welcker's about eight 
 o'clock. If these witnesses prove an alibi, it is really against each other. It is folly 
 to pretend that they prove facts which make it impossible that O'Laughlin could have 
 been at the house of Secretary Stanton, as three witnesses swear he was, on the evening 
 of the 1 3th of April, looking for General Grant. 
 
 Has it not, by the testimony thus reviewed, been established prima facie that in the 
 months of February, March, and April, O'Laughlin had combined, confederated, and 
 agreed with John Wilkes Booth and Samuel Arnold to kill and murder Abraham 
 Lincoln, William H. Seward, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant? It is not 
 established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Booth had so conspired with the rebel 
 agents in Canada as early as October last; that he was in search of agents to do the 
 work on pay, in the interests of the rebellion, and that in this speculation Arnold and 
 O'Laughlin had joined as early as February; that then, and after, with Booth and 
 Surratt, they were in the "oil business," which was the business of assassination by 
 contract as a speculation? If this conspiracy on the part of O'Laughlin with Arnold is 
 established even prima facie, the declarations and acts of Arnold and Booth, the other 
 conspirators, in furtherance of the common design, is evidence against O'Laughlin as 
 well as against Arnold himself or the other parties. The rule of law is, that the act or 
 declaration of one conspirator, done in pursuance or furtherance of the common 
 design, is the act or declaration of all the conspirators. / Wharton, job. 
 
 The letter, therefore, of his co-conspirator, Arnold, is evidence against O'Laughlin, 
 because it is an act in the prosecution of the common conspiracy, suggesting what 
 should be done in order to make it effective, and which suggestion, as has been stated, 
 was followed out. The defense has attempted to avoid the force of this letter by 
 reciting the statement of Arnold, made to Homer at the time he was arrested, in which 
 he declared, among other things, that the purpose was to abduct President Lincoln and 
 take him South; that it was to be done at the theatre by throwing the President out of 
 the box upon the floor of the stage, when the accused was to catch him. The very 
 announcement of this testimony excited derision that such a tragedy meant only to take 
 the President and carry him gently away ! This pigmy to catch the giant as the 
 assassins hurled him to the floor from an elevation of twelve feet ! The court has 
 viewed the theatre, and must be satisfied that Booth, in leaping from the President's 
 box, broke his limb. The court cannot fail to conclude that this statement of Arnold 
 was but another silly device, like that of the " oil business," which, for the time being, 
 he employed to hide from the knowledge of his captor the fact that the purpose was to- 
 murder the President. No man can, for a moment, Relieve that any one of these con- 
 spirators hoped or desired, by such a proceeding as that stated by this prisoner, to take 
 the President alive in the presence of thousands assembled in the theatre after he had
 
 APPENDIX. 387 
 
 been thus thrown upon the floor of the stage, much less to carry him through the city, 
 through the lines of your army, and deliver him into the hands of the rebels. No such 
 purpose was expressed or hinted by the conspirators in Canada, who commissioned 
 Booth to let these assassinations on contract. I shall waste not a moment more in 
 combatting such an absurdity. 
 
 Arnold does confess that he was a conspirator with Booth in this purposed murder; 
 that Booth had a letter of introduction to Dr. Mudd; that Booth, O'Laughlin, 
 Atzerodt, Surratt, a man with an alias " Mosby," and another whom he does not know, 
 and himself, were parties to this conspiracy, and that Booth had furnished them all 
 with arms. He concludes this remarkable statement to Horner with the declaration 
 that at that time, to wit, the first week of March, or four weeks before he went to 
 Fortress Monroe, he left the conspiracy, and that Booth told him to sell his arms if he 
 chose. This is sufficiently answered by the fact that, four weeks afterwards, he wrote 
 his letter to Booth, which was found in Booth's possession after the assassination, sug- 
 gesting to him what to do in order to make the conspiracy a success, and by the further 
 fact that at the very moment he uttered these declarations part of his arms were found 
 upon his person, and the rest not disposed of, but at his father's house. 
 
 A party to a treasonable and murderous conspiracy against the government of his 
 country cannot be held to have abandoned it because he makes such a declaration as 
 this, when he is in the hands of the officer of the law, arrested for his crime, and 
 especially when his declaration is in conflict with and expressly contradicted by his 
 written acts, and unsupported by any conduct of his which becomes a citizen and a 
 man. 
 
 If he abondoned the conspiracy, why did he not make known the fact to Abraham 
 Lincoln and his constitutional advisers that these men, armed with the weapons of 
 assassination, were daily lying in wait for their lives? To pretend that a man who thus 
 conducts himself for weeks after the pretended abandonment, volunteering advice for 
 the successful prosecution of the conspiracy, the evidence of which is in writing, and 
 about which there can be no mistake, has, in fact, abandoned it, is to insult the com- 
 mon understanding of men. O'Laughlin having conspired with Arnold to do this 
 murder, is, therefore, as much concluded by the letter of Arnold of the 27th of March 
 as is Arnold himself. The further testimony touching O'Laughlin, that of Streett, 
 establishes the fact that about the 1st of April he saw him in confidential conversation 
 with J. Wilkes Booth, in this city, on the Avenue. Another man, whom the witness 
 does not know, was in conversation. O'Laughlin called Streett to one side, and told 
 him Booth was busily engaged with his friend was talking privately to his friend. 
 This remark of O'Laughlin is attempted to be accounted for, but the attempt failed; 
 his counsel taking the pains to ask what induced O'Laughlin to make the remark, 
 received the fit reply: "I did not see the interior of Mr. O'Laughlin's mind; I 
 cannot tell." It is the province of this court to infer why that remark was made and 
 what it signified. 
 
 That John H. Surratt, George A. Atzerodt, Mary E. Surratt, David E. Herold, and 
 Louis Payne entered into this conspiracy with Booth, is so very clear upon the testi- 
 mony that little time need be occupied in bringing again before the court the evidence 
 which establishes it. By the testimony of Wiechmann, we find Atzerodt in February 
 at the house of the prisoner, Mrs. Surratt. He inquired for her or for John when he 
 came and remained over night. After this and before the assassination he visited there 
 frequently, and at that house bore the name of " Port Tobacco," the name by which
 
 388 APPENDIX. 
 
 he was known in Canada among the conspirators there. The same witness testifies that 
 he met him on the street, when he said he was going to visit Payne at the Herndon 
 House, and also accompanied him, along with Herold and John H. Surratt, to the 
 theatre in March to hear Booth play in "The Apostate." At the Pennsylvania House, 
 one or two weeks previous to the assassination, Atzerodt made the statement to Lieutenant 
 Keim, when asking for his knife which he had left in his room, a knife corresponding 
 in size with the one exhibited in court, " I want that; if one fails I want the other," 
 wearing at the same time his revolver at his belt. He also stated to Greenawalt, of the 
 Pennsylvania House, in March, that he was nearly broke, but had friends enough to 
 give him as much money as -would see him through, adding, " I am going away some of 
 these days, but will return with as much gold as will keep me all my lifetime." Mr. 
 Greenawalt also says that Booth had frequent interviews with Atzerodt, sometimes in 
 the room, and at other times Booth would walk in and immediately go out, Atzerodt 
 following. 
 
 John M. Lloyd testifies that some six weeks before the assassination, Herold, 
 Atzerodt, and John H. Surratt came to his house at Surrattsville, bringing with them 
 two Spencer carbines with ammunition, also a rope and wrench. Surratt asked the 
 witness to take care of them and to conceal the carbines. Surratt took him into a room 
 in the house, it being his mother's house, and showed the witness where to put the 
 carbines, between the joists on the second floor. The carbines were put there, accord- 
 ing to his directions, and concealed. Marcus P. Norton saw Atzerodt in conversation 
 with Booth at the National Hotel about the 2d or 3d of March; the conversation was 
 confidential, and the witness accidentally heard them talking in regard to President 
 Johnson, and say that "the class of witnesses would be of that character that there 
 could be little proven by them." This conversation may throw some light on the fact 
 that Atzerodt was found in possession of Booth's bank book ! 
 
 Colonel Nevens testifies that on the I2th of April last he saw Atzerodt at the Kirk- 
 wood House; that Atzerodt there asked him, a stranger, if he knew where Vice-Presi- 
 dent Johnson was, and where Mr. Johnson's room was. Colonel Nevens showed him 
 where the room of the Vice-President was, and told him that the Vice-President was 
 then at dinner. Atzerodt then looked into the dining-room where Vice-President John- 
 son was dining alone. Robert R. Jones, the clerk at the Kirkwood House, states that 
 on the 1 4th, the day of the murder, two days after this, Atzerodt registered his name 
 at the hotel, G. A. Atzerodt, and took No. 126, retaining the room that day, and carry- 
 ing away the key. In this room, after the assassination, were found the knife and 
 revolver with which he intended to murder the Vice-President. 
 
 The testimony of all these witnesses leaves no doubt that the prisoner, George A. 
 Atzerodt, entered into this conspiracy with Booth; that he expected to receive a large 
 compensation for the service that he would render in its execution; that he had under- 
 taken the assassination of the Vice-President for a price; that he, with Surratt and 
 Herold, rendered the important service of depositing the arms and ammunition to be 
 used by Booth and his confederates as a protection in their flight after the conspiracy 
 had been executed; and that he was careful to have his intended victim pointed out to 
 him, and the room he occupied in the hotel, so that when he came to perform his horrid 
 work he would know precisely where to go and whom to strike. 
 
 I take no further notice now of the preparation which this prisoner made for the 
 successful execution of this part of the traitorous and murderous design. The question 
 is, Hid he enter into this conspiracy? His language overheard by Mr. Norton excludes
 
 A rr END ix. 389 
 
 every other conclusion. Vice- President Johnson's name was mentioned in that secret 
 conversation with Booth, and the very suggestive expression was made between them 
 that " little could be proved by the witnesses." His confession in his defense is con- 
 clusive of his guilt. 
 
 That Payne was in this conspiracy is confessed in the defense made by his counsel, 
 and is also evident, from the facts proved, that when the conspiracy was being organized 
 in Canada by Thompson, Sanders, Tucker, Cleary, and Clay, this man Payne stood at 
 the door of Thompson, was recommended and indorsed by Clay with the words, "We 
 trust him"; that after coming hither he first reported himself at the house of Mrs. 
 Mary E. Surratt, inquired for her and for John H. Surratt, remained there for four 
 days, having conversation with both of them; having provided himself with means of 
 disguise, was also supplied with pistols and a knife, such as he afterwards used, and 
 spurs, preparatory to his flight; was seen with John H. Surratt, practicing with knives 
 such as those employed in this deed of assassination and now before the court; was 
 afterwards provided with lodging at the Herndon House, at the instance of Surratt; 
 was visited there by Atzerodt, and attended Booth and Surratt to Ford's Theatre, occu- 
 pying with those parties the box, as I believe and which we may readily infer, in which 
 the President was afterwards murdered. 
 
 If further testimony be wanting that he had entered into the conspiracy, it may be 
 found in the fact sworn to by Wiechmann, whose testimnoy no candid man will dis- 
 credit, that about the aoth of March, Mrs. Surratt, in great excitement and weeping, 
 said that her son John had gone away not to return, when, about three hours subse- 
 quently, in the afternoon of the same day, John H. Surratt reappeared, came rushing 
 in a state of frenzy into the room, in his mother's house, armed, declaring he would 
 shoot whoever came into the room, and proclaiming that his prospects were blasted and 
 his hopes gone; that soon Payne came into the same room, also armed and under great 
 excitement, and was immediately followed by Booth, with his riding-whip in his hand, 
 who walked rapidly across the floor from side to side, so much excited that for some 
 time he did not notice the presence of the witness. Observing Wiechmann, the parties 
 then withdrew, upon a suggestion from Booth, to an upper room, and there had a pri- 
 vate interview. From all that transpired on that occasion, it is apparent that when 
 these parties left the house that day it was with the full purpose of completing some 
 act essential to the final execution of the work of assassination, in conformity with their 
 previous confederation and agreement. They returned foiled from what cause is 
 unknown dejected, angry, and covered with confusion. 
 
 It is almost imposing upon the patience of the court to consume time in demonstrat- 
 ing the fact which none conversant with the testimony of this case can for a moment 
 doubt, that John H. Surratt and Mary E. Surratt were as surely in the conspiracy to 
 murder the President as was John Wilkes Booth himself. You have the frequent inter- 
 views between John H. Surratt and Booth, his intimate relations with Payne, his visits 
 from Atzerodt and Herold, his deposit of the arms to cover their flight after the con- 
 spiracy should have been executed; his own declared visit to Richmond to do what 
 Booth himself said to Chester must be done, to wit, that he or some of the party must 
 go to Richmond in order to get funds to carry out the conspiracy; that he brought back 
 with him gold, the price of blood, confessing himself that he was there; that he imme- 
 diately went to Canada, delivered despatches in cipher to Jacob Thompson from Jeff- 
 erson Davis, which were interpreted and read by Thompson in the presence of the witness 
 Conover, and in which the conspiracy was approved, and, in the language of Thompson, 
 the proposed assassination was "made all right."
 
 390 APPENDIX. 
 
 One other fact, if any other fact be needed, and I have done with the evidence 
 which proves that John H. Surratt entered into this combination; that is, that it 
 "appears by the testimony of the witness, the cashier of the Ontario Bank, Montreal, 
 that Jacob Thompson, about the day that these despatches were delivered, and while 
 Surratt was then present in Canada, drew from that bank of the rebel funds there on 
 deposit the sum of one hundred and eighty thousand dollars. This being done, 
 Surratt, rinding it safer, doubtless, to go to Canada for the great bulk of funds which 
 were to be distributed amongst these hired assassins than to attempt to carry it through 
 our lines direct from Richmond, immediately returned to Washington and was present 
 in this city, as is proven by the testimony of Mr. Reid, on the afternoon of the i4th of 
 April, the day of the assassination, booted and spurred, ready for the flight whenever 
 the fatal blow should have been struck. If he was not a conspirator and a party to 
 this great crime, how comes it that from that hour to this no man has seen him in the 
 capital, nor has he been reported anywhere outside of Canada, having arrived at Mont- 
 real, as the testimony shows, on the i8th of April, four days after the murder? Noth- 
 ing but his conscious coward guilt could possibly induce him to absent himself from 
 his mother, as he does, upon her trial. Being one of these conspirators, as charged, 
 every act of his in the prosecution of this crime is evidence against the other parties to 
 the conspiracy. 
 
 That Mary E. Surratt is as guilty as her son of having thus conspired, combined, and 
 confederated to do this murder, in aid of this rebellion, is clear. First, her house was 
 the headquarters of Booth, John H. Surratt, Atzerodt, Payne, and Herold. She is 
 inquired for by Atzerodt; she is inquired for by Payne; and she is visited by Booth, 
 and holds private conversations with him. His picture, together with that of the chief 
 conspirator, Jefferson Davis, is found in her house. She sends to Booth for a carriage 
 to take her, on the nth of April, to Surrattsville for the purpose of perfecting the 
 arrangement deemed necessary to the successful execution of the conspiracy, and 
 especially to facilitate and protect the conspirators in their escape from justice. On 
 that occasion Booth, having disposed of his carriage, gives to the agent she employed 
 ten dollars with which to hire a conveyance for that purpose. And yet the pretence 
 is made that Mrs. Surratt went on the nth to Surrattsville exclusively upon her own 
 private and lawful business. Can any one tell, if that be so, how it comes that she 
 should apply to Booth for a conveyance, and how it comes that he of his own accord, 
 having no conveyance to furnish her, should send her ten dollars with which to procure 
 it? There is not the slightest indication that Booth was under any obligation to her, 
 or that she had any claim upon him, either for a conveyance or for the means with 
 which to procure one, except that he was bound to contribute, being the agent of the 
 conspirators in Canada and Richmond, whatever money might be necessary to the con- 
 summation of this infernal plot. On that day, the nth of April, John H. Surratt had 
 not returned from Canada with the funds furnished by Thompson ! 
 
 Upon that journey of the nth the accused, Mary E. Surratt, met the witness 
 John M. Lloyd at Uniontown. She called him; lie got out of his carriage and came 
 to her, and she whispered to him in so low a tone that her attendant could not hear 
 her words, though Lloyd, to whom they were spoken, did distinctly hear them, and 
 testifies that she told him he should have those "shooting-irons " ready, meaning the 
 carbines which her son and Herold and Atzerodt had deposited with him, and 
 added the reason, " for they would soon be called for." On the day of the assassina- 
 tion she again sent for Booth, had an interview with him in her own house, and
 
 APPENDIX. 391 
 
 immediately went again to Surrattsville, and then, at about six o'clock in the afternoon, 
 she delivered to Lloyd a field-glass, and told him " to have two bottles of whiskey and the 
 carbines ready, as they would be called for that night." Having thus perfected the 
 arrangement she returned to Washington to her own house, at about half-past eight 
 o'clock in the evening, to await the final result. How could this woman anticipate on 
 Friday afternoon, at six o'clock, that these arms would be called for and would be 
 needed that night unless she was in the conspiracy and knew the blow was to be struck, 
 and the flight of the assassins attempted and by that route? Was not the private con- 
 versation which Booth held with her in her parlor on the afternoon of the I4th of 
 April, just before she left on this business, in relation to the orders she should give to 
 have the arms ready? 
 
 An endeavor is made to impeach Lloyd. But the court will observe that no witness 
 has been called who contradicts Lloyd's statement in any material matter; neither has 
 his general character for truth been assailed. How, then, is he impeached? Is it 
 claimed that his testimony shows that he was a party to the conspiracy? Then it is 
 conceded by those who set up any such pretence that there was a conspiracy. A con- 
 spiracy between whom? There can be no conspiracy without the co-operation or 
 agreement of two or more persons. Who were the other parties to it? Was it 
 Mary E. Surratt? Was it John H. Surratt, George A. Atzerodt, David E. Herold? 
 Those are the only persons, so far as his own testimony or the testimony of any other 
 witness discloses, with whom he had any communication whatever on any subject 
 immediately or remotely touching this conspiracy before the assassination. His receipt 
 and concealment of the arms are, unexplained, evidence that he was in the conspiracy. 
 
 The explanation is that he was dependent upon Mary E. Surratt; was her tenant; 
 and his declaration, given in evidence by the accused herself, is that " she had ruined 
 him and brought this trouble upon him." But because he was weak enough, or wicked 
 enough, to become the guilty depository of these arms, and to deliver them on the 
 order of Mary E. Surratt to the assassins, it does not follow that he is not to be believed 
 on oath. It is said that he concealed the facts that the arms had been left and called 
 for. He so testifies himself, but he gives the reason that he did it only from apprehen- 
 sion of danger to his life. If he were in the conspiracy, his general credit being 
 unchallenged, his testimony being uncontradicted in any material matter, he is to be 
 believed, and cannot be disbelieved if his testimony is substantially corroborated by 
 other reliable witnesses. Is he not corroborated touching the deposit of arms by the 
 fact that the arms are produced in court, one of which was found upon the person of 
 Booth at the time he was overtaken and slain, and which is identified as the same which 
 had been left with Lloyd by Herold, Surratt, and Atzerodt? Is he not corroborated in 
 the fact of the first interview with Mrs. Surratt by the joint testimony of Mrs. Offut 
 and Lewis J. Wiechmann, each of whom testified (and they are contradicted by no 
 one), that on Tuesday, the nth day of April, at Uniontown, Mrs. Surratt called Mr. 
 Lloyd to come to her, which he did, and she held a secret conversation with him? Is 
 he not corroborated as to the last conversation on the I4th of April by the testimony of 
 Mrs. Offut, who swears that upon the evening of the I4th of April she saw the pris- 
 oner, Mary E. Surratt, at Lloyd's house, approach and hold conversation with him? 
 Is he not corroborated in the fact, to which he swears, that Mrs. Surratt delivered to 
 him at that time the field-glass wrapped in paper, by the sworn statement of Wiechmann 
 that Mrs. Surratt took with her on that occasion two packages, both of which were 
 wrapped in paper, and one of which he describes as a small package about six inches
 
 392 APPENDIX. 
 
 in diameter? The attempt was made by calling Mrs. Offut to prove that no such pack- 
 age was delivered, but it failed; she merely states that Mrs. Surratt delivered a package 
 wrapped in paper to her after her arrival there, and before Lloyd came in, which was 
 laid down in the room. But whether it was the package about which Lloyd testifies, or 
 the other package of the two about which Wiechmann testifies, as having been carried 
 there that day by Mrs. Surratt, does not appear. Neither does this witness pretend to 
 say that Mrs. Surratt, after she had delivered it to her, and the witness had laid it down 
 in the room, did not again take it up, if it were the same, and put it in the hands of 
 Lloyd. She only knows that she did not see that done; but she did see Lloyd with a 
 package like the one she received in the room before Mrs. Surratt left. How it came 
 into his possession she is not able to state; nor what the package was that Mrs. Surratt 
 first handed her; nor which of the packages it was she afterwards saw in the hands of 
 Lloyd. 
 
 But there is one other fact in this case that puts forever at rest the question of the 
 guilty participation of the prisoner, Mrs. Surratt, in this conspiracy and murder; and 
 that is that Payne, who had lodged four days in hei. house who during all that time 
 had sat at her table, and who had often conversed with her when the guilt of his 
 great crime was upon him, and he knew not where else he could so safely go to find a 
 co-conspirator, and he could trust none that was not like himself, guilty, with even the 
 knowledge of his presence under cover of darkness, after wandering for three days 
 and nights, skulking before the pursuing officers of justice, at the hour of midnight 
 found his way to the door of Mrs. Surratt, rang the bell, was admitted, and upon being 
 asked, " Whom do you want to see? " replied, " Mrs. Surratt." He was then asked 
 by the officer, Morgan, what he came at that time of night for, to which he replied, 
 " to dig a gutter in the morning; Mrs. Surratt had sent for him." Afterwards he said 
 " Mrs. Surratt knew he was a poor man and came to him." Being asked where he last 
 worked, he replied, "sometimes on ' I ' street"; and where he boarded, he replied, 
 "he had no boarding-house, and was a poor man who got his living with the pick," 
 which he bore upon his shoulder, having stolen it from the intrenchments of the capital. 
 Upon being pressed again why he came there at that time of night to go to work, he 
 answered that he simply called to see what time he should go to work in the morning. 
 Upon being told by the officer, who fortunately had preceded him to this house, that 
 he would have to go to the provost marshal's office, he moved and did not answer, 
 whereupon Mrs. Surratt was asked to step into the hall and state whether she knew 
 this man. Raising her right hand, she exclaimed, " Before God, sir, I have not seen 
 that man before; I have not hired him; I do not know anything about him." The 
 hall was brilliantly lighted. 
 
 If not one word had been said, the mere act of Payne in flying to her house for 
 shelter would have borne witness against her, strong as proofs from Holy Writ. But 
 when she denies, after hearing his declarations, that she had sent for him, or that she 
 had gone to him and hired him, and calls her God to witness that she had never seen 
 him, and knew nothing of him, when, in point of fact, she had seen him for four suc- 
 cessive days in her own house, in the same clothing which he then wore, who can 
 resist for a moment the conclusion that these parties were alike guilty? 
 
 The testimony of Spangler's complicity is conclusive and brief. It was impossible 
 to hope for escape after assassinating the President, and such others as might attend 
 him in Ford's Theatre, without arrangements being first made to aid the flight of the 
 assassin and to some extent prevent immediate pursuit.
 
 APPENDIX. 393 
 
 A stable was to be provided close to Ford's Theatre, in which the horses could be 
 concealed and kept ready for the assassin's use whenever the murderous, blow was 
 struck. Accordingly, Booth secretly, through Maddox, hired a stable in rear of the 
 theatre and connecting with it by an alley, as early as the 1st of January last; showing 
 that at that time he had concluded, notwithstanding all that has been said to the con- 
 trary, to murder the President in Ford's Theatre and provide the means for immediate 
 and successful flight. Conscious of his guilt, he paid the rent for this stable through 
 Maddox, month by month, giving him the money. He employed Spangler, doubtless 
 for the reason that he could trust him with the secret, as a carpenter to fit up this shed, 
 so that it would furnish room for two horses, and provide the door with lock and key. 
 Spangler did this work for him. Then, it was necessary that a carpenter having access 
 to the theatre should be employed by the assassin to provide a bar for the outer door of 
 the passage leading to the President's box, so that when he entered upon his work of 
 assassination he would be secure from interruption from the rear. By the evidence, it 
 is shown that Spangler was in the box in which the President was murdered on the 
 afternoon of the I4th of April, and when there damned the President and General 
 Grant, and said the President ought to be cursed, he had got so many good men killed; 
 showing not only his hostility to the President, but the cause of it that he had been 
 faithful to his oath and had resisted that great rebellion in the interest of which his life 
 was about to be sacrificed by this man and his co-conspirators. In performing the 
 work which had doubtless been intrusted to him by Booth, a mortise was cut in the 
 wall. A wooden bar was prepared, one end of which could be readily inserted in 
 the mortise and the other pressed against the edge of the door on the -inside so as to 
 prevent its being opened. Spangler had the skill and the opportunity to do that work 
 and all the additional work which was done. 
 
 It is in evidence that the screws in " the keepers " to the locks on each of the inner 
 doors of the box occupied by the President were drawn. The attempt has been made, 
 on behalf of the prisoner, to show that this was done some time before, accidentally, 
 and with no bad design, and had not been repaired by reason of inadvertence; but 
 that attempt has utterly failed, because the testimony adduced for that purpose relates 
 exclusively to but one of the two inner doors, while the fact is, that the screws were 
 drawn in both, and the additional precaution taken to cut a small hole through one of 
 these doors through which the party approaching and while in the private passage 
 would be enabled to look into the box and examine the exact posture of the President 
 before entering. It was also deemed essential, in the execution of this plot, that some 
 one should watch at the outer door, in the rear of the theatre, by which alone the 
 assassin could hope for escape. It was for this work Booth sought to employ Chester 
 in January, offering three thousand dollars down of the money of his employers, and 
 the assurance that he should never want. What Chester refused to do Spangler under- 
 took and promised to do. When Booth brought his horse to the rear door of the 
 theatre, on the evening of the murder, he called for Spangler, who went to him, when 
 Booth was heard to say to him, "Ned, you'll help me all you can, won't you?" To 
 which Splangler replied, " Oh, yes." 
 
 When Booth made his escape, it is testified by Colonel Stewart, who pursued him 
 across the stage and out through the same door, that as he approached it some one 
 slammed it shut. Ritterspaugh, who was standing behind the scenes when Booth fired 
 the pistol and fled, saw Booth run down the passage toward the back door, and pur- 
 sued him; but Booth drew his knife upon him and passed out, slamming the door after
 
 394 APPENDIX. 
 
 him. Ritterspaugh opened it and went through, leaving it open behind him, leaving 
 Spangler inside, and in a position from which he readily could have reached the door. 
 Ritterspaugh also states that very quickly after he had passed through this door he was 
 followed by a large man, the first who followed him, and who was, doubtless, Colonel 
 Stewart. Stewart is very positive that he saw this door slammed; that he himself was 
 constrained to open it, and had some difficulty in opening it. He also testifies that as 
 he approached the door a man stood near enough to have thrown it to with his hand, 
 and this man, the witness believes, was the prisoner Spangler. Ritterspaugh has 
 sworn that he left the door open behind him when he went out, and that he was first 
 followed by the large man, Colonel Stewart. Who slammed that door behind Ritters- 
 paugh? It was not Ritterspaugh; it could not have been Booth, for Ritterspaugh 
 swears that Booth was mounting his horse at the time; and Stewart swears that Booth 
 was upon his horse when he came out. That it was Spangler who slammed the door 
 after Ritterspaugh may not only be inferred from Stewart's testimony, but it is made 
 very clear by his own conduct afterwards upon the return of Ritterspaugh to the stage. 
 The door being then open, and Ritterspaugh being asked which way Booth went, had 
 answered. Ritterspaugh says: "Then I came back on the stage, where I had left 
 Edward Spangler; he hit me on the face with his hand and said, ' Don't say which 
 way he went.' I asked him what he meant by slapping me in the mouth? He said, 
 'For God's sake, shut up.' " 
 
 The testimony of Withers is adroitly handled to throw doubt upon these facts. It 
 cannot avail, for Withers says he was knocked in the scene by Booth, and when he 
 "come to" he got a side view of him. A man knocked down and senseless, on 
 " coming to " might mistake anybody by a side view for Booth. 
 
 An attempt has been made by the defense to discredit this testimony of Ritters- 
 paugh, by showing his contradictory statements to Gifford, Garlan, and Lamb, neither 
 of whom do in fact contradict him, but substantially sustain him. None but a guilty 
 man would have met the witness with a blow for stating which way the assassin had 
 gone. A like confession of guilt was made by Spangler when the witness Miles, the 
 same evening, and directly after the assassination, came to the back door, where 
 Spangler was standing with others, and asked Spangler who it was that held the horse, 
 to which Spangler replied : "Hush; don't say anything about it." He confessed his 
 guilt again when he denied to Mary Anderson the fact, proved here beyond all 
 question, that Booth had called him when he came to that door with his horse, using 
 the emphatic words, " No, he did not; he did not call me." The rope comes to bear 
 witness against him, as did the rope which Atzerodt and Herold and John H. Surratt 
 had carried to Surrattsville and deposed there with the carbines. 
 
 It is only surprising that the ingenious counsel did not attempt to explain the 
 deposit of the rope at Surrattsville by the same method that he adopted in explanation 
 of the deposit of this rope, some sixty feet long, found in the carpet-sack of Spangler, 
 unaccounted for save by some evidence which tends to show that he may have carried 
 it away from the theatre. 
 
 It is not needful to take time in the recapitulation of the evidence, which shows 
 conclusively that David E. Herold was one of these conspirators. His continued asso- 
 ciation with Booth, with Atzerodt, his visits to Mrs. Surratt's, his attendance at the 
 theatre with Payne, Surratt, and Atzerodt, his connection with Atzerodt on the evening 
 of the murder, riding with him on the street in the direction of and near to the theatre 
 at the hour appointed for the work of assassination, and his final flight and arrest,
 
 APPENDIX. 395 
 
 show that he, in common with all the other parties on trial, and all the parties named 
 upon your record not upon trial, and combined and confederated to kill and murder in 
 the interests of the rebellion, as charged and specified against them. 
 
 That this conspiracy was entered into by all these parties, both present and absent, 
 is thus proved by the acts, meetings, declarations, and correspondence of all the 
 parties, beyond any doubt whatever. True it is circumstantial evidence, but the court 
 will remember the rule before recited, that circumstances cannot lie; that they are 
 held sufficient in every court where justice is judicially administered to establish the 
 fact of a conspiracy. I shall take no further notice of the remark made by the learned 
 counsel who opens for the defense, and which has been followed by several of his 
 associates, that under the Constitution it requires two witnesses to prove the overt act 
 of high treason, than to say, this is not a charge of high treason, but of a treasonable 
 conspiracy, in aid of a rebellion, with intent to kill and murder the executive officer of 
 the United States, and commander of its armies, and of the murder of the President in 
 pursuance of that conspiracy, and with the intent laid, etc. Neither by the Constitu- 
 tion, nor by the rules of the common law, is any fact connected with this allegation 
 required to be established by the testimony of more than one witness. I might say, 
 however, that every substantive averment against each of the parties named upon this 
 record has been established by the testimony of more than one witness. 
 
 That the several accused did enter into this conspiracy with John Wilkes Booth and 
 John H. Surratt to murder the officers of this government named upon the record, in 
 pursuance of the wishes of their employers and instigators in Richmond and Canada, 
 and with intent thereby to aid the existing rebellion and subvert the Constitution and 
 laws of the United States, as alleged, is no longer an open question. 
 
 The intent as laid was expressly declared by Sanders in the meeting of the conspir- 
 ators at Montreal in February last, by Booth in Virginia and New York, and by Thomp- 
 son to Conover and Montgomery; but if there were no testimony directly upon this 
 point, the law would presume the intent, for the reason that such was the natural and 
 necessary tendency and manifest design of the act itself. 
 
 The learned gentleman (Mr. Johnson) says the government has survived the assas- 
 sination of the President, and thereby would have you infer that this conspiracy was 
 not entered into and attempted to be executed with the intent laid. With as much 
 show of reason it might be said that because the government of the United States has 
 survived this unmatched rebellion, it therefore results that the rebel conspirators 
 waged war upon the government with no purpose or intent thereby to subvert it. By 
 the law we have seen that, without any direct evidence of previous combination and 
 agreement between these parties, the conspiracy might be established by evidence of the 
 acts of the prisoners, or of any others with whom they co-operated, concurring in the 
 execution of the common design. Roscoe, 416. 
 
 Was there co-operation between the several accused in the execution of this con- 
 spiracy? That there was is as clearly established by the testimony as is the fact that 
 Abraham Lincoln was killed and murdered by John Wilkes Booth. The evidence shows 
 that all of the accused, save Mudd and Arnold, were in Washington on the I4th of 
 April, the day of .the assassination, together with John Wilkes Booth and John H. 
 Surratt; that on that day Booth had a secret interview with the prisoner, Mary E. 
 Surratt; that immediately thereafter she went to Surrattsville to perform her part of the 
 preparation necessary to the successful execution of the conspiracy, and did make that 
 preparation; that John H. Surratt had arrived here from Canada, notifying the parties
 
 39<5 APPENDIX. 
 
 that the price to be paid for this great crime had been provided for, at least in part, by 
 the deposit receipts of April 6th for $180,000, procured by Thompson of the Ontario 
 Bank, Montreal, Canada; that he was also prepared to keep watch, or strike a blow, 
 and ready for the contemplated flight; that Atzerodt, on the afternoon of that day, 
 was seeking to obtain a horse, the better to secure his own safety by flight, after he 
 should have performed the task which he had voluntarily undertaken by contract in the 
 Conspiracy the murder of Andrew Johnson, then Vice-President of the United States; 
 that he did procure a horse for that purpose at Naylor's, and was seen about nine o'clock 
 in the evening to ride to the Kirkwood House, where the Vice-President then was, dis- 
 mount and enter. At a previous hour Booth was in the Kirkwood House, and left his 
 card, now in evidence, doubtless intended to be sent to the room of the Vice-President, 
 and which was in these words: "Don't wish to disturb you. Are you at home? J. 
 Wilkes Booth." Atzerodt, when he made application at Brooks's in the afternoon for 
 the horse, said to Wiechmann, who was there, he was going to ride in the country, and 
 that " he was going to get a horse and send for Payne." He did get a horse for Payne, 
 as well as for himself; for it is proven that on the I2th he was seen in Washington 
 riding the horse which had been procured by Booth, in company with Mudd, last 
 November, from Gardner. A similar horse was tied before the door of Mr. Seward on 
 the night of the murder, was captured after the flight of Payne, who was seen to ride 
 away, and which horse is now identified as the Gardner horse. Booth also procured a 
 horse on the same day, took it to his stable in the rear of the theatre, where he had an 
 interview with Spangler, and where he concealed it. Herold, too, obtained a horse in 
 the afternoon, and was seen between nine and ten o'clock riding with Atzerodt down 
 the Avenue from the Treasury, then up Fourteenth and down F Street, passing close 
 by Ford's Theatre. 
 
 O'Laughlin had come to Washington the day before, had sought out his victim 
 (General Grant) at the house of the Secretary of War, that he might be able with 
 certainty to identify him, and at the very hour when these preparations were going on 
 was lying in wait at Rullman's on the Avenue, keeping watch, and declaring, as he 
 did, at about ten o'clock P.M., when told that the fatal blow had been struck by Booth, 
 "I don't believe Booth did it." During the day, and the night before, he had been 
 visiting Booth, and doubtless encouraging him, and at that very hour was in position, 
 at a convenient distance, to aid and protect him in his flight, as well as to execute his 
 own part of the conspiracy by inflicting death upon General Grant, who, happily, was. 
 not at the theatre nor in the city, having left the city that day. Who doubts that 
 Booth, having ascertained in the course of the day that General Grant would not be 
 present at the theatre, O'Laughlin, who was to murder General Grant, instead of enter- 
 ing the box with Booth, was detailed to lie in wait, and watch and support him. 
 
 His declarations of his reasons for changing his lodgings here and in Baltimore, 
 after the murder, so ably and so ingeniously presented in the argument of his learned 
 counsel (Mr. Cox), avail nothing before the blasting fact that he did change his lodg- 
 ings, and declared "he knew nothing of the affair whatever." O'Laughlin, who 
 lurked here, conspiring daily with Booth and Arnold for six weeks to do this murder, 
 declares "he knew nothing of the affair." O'Laughlin, who said ^he was "in the oil 
 business," which Booth and Surratt and Payne and Arnold have all declared meant this 
 conspiracy, says he "knew nothing of the affair." O'Laughlin, to whom Booth sent 
 the despatches of the I3th and 27th of March O'Laughlin, who is named in Arnold's 
 letter as one of the conspirators, and who searched for General Grant on Thursday
 
 APPENDIX. 397 
 
 night, laid in wait for him on Friday, was defeated by that Providence " which shapes 
 our ends," and laid in wait to aid Booth and Payne, declares "he knows nothing of 
 the matter." Such a denial is as false and inexcusable as Peter's denial of our Lord. 
 
 Mrs. Surratt had arrived at home, from the completion of her part in the plot, about 
 half past eight o'clock in the evening. A few moments afterwards she was called to 
 the parlor and there had a private interview with some one unseen, but whose retreating 
 footsteps were heard by the witness Wiechmann. This was doubtless the secret and 
 last visit of John H. Surratt to his mother, who had instigated and encouraged him to 
 strike this traitorous and murderous blow against his country. 
 
 While all these preparations were going on, Mudd was awaiting the execution of the 
 plot, ready to faithfully perform his part in securing the safe escape of the murderers. 
 Arnold was at his post at Fortress Monroe, awaiting the meeting referred to in his letter 
 of March 27th, wherein he says they were not "to meet for a month or so," which 
 month had more than expired on the day of the murder, for his letter and the testimony 
 disclose that this month of suspension began to run from about the first week in March. 
 He stood ready with the arms which Booth had furnished him to aid the escape of the 
 murderers by that route, and secure their communication with their employers. He 
 had given the assurance in that letter to Booth, that although the government "suspi- 
 cioned them," and the undertaking was "becoming complicated," yet "a time more 
 propitious would arrive" for the consummation of this conspiracy in which he "was 
 one " with Booth, and when he would " be better prepared to again be with him." 
 
 Such were the preparations. The horses were in readiness for the flight; the 
 ropes were procured, doubtless for the purpose of tying the horses at whatever point they 
 might be constrained to delay and to secure their boats to their moorings in making 
 their way across the Potomac. The five murderous camp knives, the twp carbines, the 
 eight revolvers, the derringer, in court and identified, all were ready for the work of 
 death. The part that each had played has already been in part stated in this argument, 
 and needs no repetition. 
 
 Booth proceeded to the theatre about nine o'clock in the evening, at the same time 
 that Atzerodt and Payne and Herold were riding the streets, while Surratt, having 
 parted with his mother at the brief interview in her parlor, from which his retreating 
 steps were heard, was walking the Avenue, booted and spurred, and doubtless con- 
 sulting with O'Laughlin. When Booth reached the rear of the theatre, he called Spang- 
 ler to him (whose denial of that fact, when charged with it, as proven by three witnesses 
 is very significant) and received from Spangler his pledge to help him all he could, 
 when with Booth he entered the theatre by the stage-door, doubtless to see that the 
 way was clear from the box to the rear door of the theatre, and look upon their victim, 
 whose exact position they could study from the stage. After this view, Booth passes to 
 the street in front of the theatre, where, on the pavement with other conspirators yet 
 unknown, among them one described as a low-browed villain, he awaits the appointed 
 moment. Booth himself, impatient, enters the vestibule of the theatre from the front 
 and asks the time. He is referred to the clock, and returns. Presently, as the hour of 
 ten o'clock approached, one of his guilty associates called the time; they wait; again, 
 as the moments elapsed, this conspirator upon watch called the time; again, as the 
 appointed hour draws nigh, he calls the time; and finally, when the fatal moment 
 arrives, he repeats in a louder tone, "Ten minutes past ten o'clock!" Ten minutes 
 past ten o'clock ! The hour has come when the red right hand of these murderous 
 conspirators should strike, and the dreadful deed of assassination be done.
 
 398 APPENDIX. 
 
 Booth, at the appointed moment, entered the theatre, ascended to the dress-circle,, 
 passed to the right, paused a moment, looking down, doubtless to see if Spangler was 
 at his post, and approached the outer door of the close passage leading to the box 
 occupied by the President, pressed it open, passed in, and closed the passage door 
 behind him. Spangler's bar was in its place, and was readily adjusted by Booth in the 
 mortise, and pressed against the inner side of the door, so that he was secure from 
 interruption from without. He passes on to the next door, immediately behind the 
 President, and there stopping, looks through the aperture in the door into the Presi- 
 dent's box, and deliberately observes the precise position of his victim, seated in the 
 chair which had been prepared by the conspirators as the altar for the sacrifice, looking 
 calmly and quietly down upon the glad and grateful people whom by his fidelity he had 
 saved from the peril which had threatened the destruction of their government, and all 
 they held dear this side of the grave, and whom he had come upon invitation to greet 
 with his presence, with the words still lingering upon his lips which he had uttered with 
 uncovered head and uplifted hand before God and his country, when on the 4th of last 
 March he took again the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, declar- 
 ing that he entered upon the duties of his great office ' ' with malice toward none 
 with charity for all." In a moment more, strengthened by the knowledge that his 
 co-conspirators were all at their posts, seven at least of them present in the city, two 
 of them, Mudd and Arnold, at their appointed places, watching for his coming, this 
 hired assassin moves stealthily through the door, the fastenings of which had been 
 removed to facilitate his entrance, fires upon his victim, and the martyr spirit of Abraham 
 Lincoln ascends to God. 
 
 "Treason has done his worst; nor steel, nor poison, 
 Malice domestic, foreign levy, nothing 
 Can touch him further." 
 
 At the same hour, when these accused and their co-conspirators in Richmond and 
 Canada, by the hand of John Wilkes Booth, inflicted this mortal wound which deprived 
 the republic of its defender, and filled this land from ocean to ocean with a strange, 
 great sorrow, Payne, a very demon in human form, with the words of falsehood upon 
 his lips, that he was the bearer of a message from the physician of the venerable Sec- 
 retary of State, sweeps by his servant, encounters his son, who protests that the assassin 
 shall not disturb his father, prostrate on a bed of sickness, and receives for answer the 
 assassin's blow from the revolver in his hand, repeated again and again, rushes into the 
 room, is encountered by Major Seward, inflicts wound after wound upon him with his 
 murderous knife, is encountered by Hansell and Robinson, each of whom he also 
 wounds, springs upon the defenseless and feeble Secretary of State, stabs first on one 
 side of his throat, then on the other, again in the face, and is only prevented from 
 literally hacking out his life by the persistence and courage of the attendant Robinson. 
 He turns to flee, and, his giant arm and murderous hand for a moment paralyzed by 
 the consciousness of guilt, he drops his weapons of death, one in the house, the other 
 at the door, where they were taken up, and are here now to bear witness against him. 
 He attempts escape on the horse which Booth and Mudd had procured of Gardner, 
 with what success has already been stated. 
 
 Atzerodt, near midnight, returns to the stable of Naylor the horse which he had 
 procured for this work of murder, having been interrupted in the execution of the part 
 assigned him at the Kirkwood House by the timely coming of citizens to the defense of
 
 APPENDIX. 399 
 
 the Vice-President, and creeps into the Pennsylvania House at two o'clock in the morn- 
 ing with another of the conspirators, yet unknown. There he remained until about five 
 o'clock, when he left, found his way to Georgetown, pawned one of his revolvers, now 
 in court, and fled northward into Maryland. 
 
 He is traced to Montgomery County, to the house of Mr. Metz, on the Sunday 
 succeeding the murder, where, as is proved by the testimony of three witnesses, he said 
 that if the man that was to follow General Grant had followed him, it was likely that 
 Grant was shot. To one of these witnesses (Mr. Layman) he said he did not think 
 Grant had been killed ; or if he had been killed he was killed by a man who got on the 
 cars at the same time that Grant did; thus disclosing most clearly that one of his co- 
 conspirators was assigned the task of killing and murdering General Grant, and that 
 Atzerodt knew that General Grant had left the city of Washington, a fact which is not 
 disputed, on the Friday evening of the murder, by the evening train. Thus this intended 
 victim of the conspiracy escaped, for that night, the knives and revolvers of Atzerodt 
 and O'Laughlin and Payne and Herold and Booth and John H. Surratt and, perchance, 
 Harper and Caldwell, and twenty others, who were then here lying in wait for his life. 
 
 In the mean time Booth and Herold, taking the route before agreed upon, make 
 directly after the assassination for the Anacostia bridge. Booth crosses first, gives his 
 name, passes the guard, and is speedily followed by Herold. They make their way 
 directly to Surrattsville, where Herold calls to Lloyd, "Bring out those things," show- 
 ing that there had been communication between them and Mrs. Surratt after her return. 
 Both the carbines being in readiness, according to Mary E. Surratt's directions, both 
 were brought out. They took but one. Booth declined to carry the other, saying that 
 his limb was broken. They then declared that they had murdered the President and 
 the Secretary of State. They then make their way directly to the house of the prisoner 
 Mudd, assured of safety and security. They arrived early in the morning before day, 
 and no man knows at what hour they left. Herold rode towards Bryantown with Mudd 
 about three o'clock that afternoon, in the vicinity of which place he parted with him, 
 remaining in the swamp, and was afterwards seen returning the same afternoon in the 
 direction of Mudd's house, about which time, a little before sundown, Mudd returned 
 from Bryantown towards his home. This village at the time Mudd was in it was 
 thronged with soldiers in pursuit of the murderers of the President, and although great 
 care has been taken by the defense to deny that any one said in the presence of Dr. 
 Mudd, either .there or elsewhere on that day, who had committed this crime, yet it is in 
 evidence by two witnesses, whose truthfulness no man questions, that upon Mudd's 
 return to his own house that afternoon, he stated that Booth was the murderer of the 
 President, and Boyle the murderer of Secretary Seward, but took care to make the 
 further remark that Booth had brothers, and he did not know which of them had done 
 the act. When did Dr. Mudd learn that Booth had brothers? And what is still more 
 pertinent to this inquiry, from whom did he learn that either John Wilkes Booth or any 
 of his brothers had murdered the President? It is clear that Booth remained in his 
 house until some time in the afternoon of Saturday; that Herold left the house alone, 
 as one of the witnesses states, being seen to pass the window; that he alone of these 
 two assassins was in the company of Dr. Mudd on his way to Bryantown. It does not 
 appear when Herold returned to Mudd's house. It is a confession of Dr. Mudd him- 
 self, proven by one of the witnesses, that Booth left his house on crutches and went in 
 the direction of the swamp. How long he remained there, and what became of the 
 horses which Booth and Herold rode to his house and which were put into his stable,
 
 4OO APPENDIX. 
 
 are facts nowhere disclosed by the evidence. The owners testify that they have never 
 seen the horses since. The accused give no explanation of the matter, and when Her- 
 old and Booth were captured they had not these horses in their possession. How comes 
 it that, on Mudd's return from Bryantown, on the evening of Saturday, in his conver- 
 sation with Mr. Hardy and Mr. Farrell, the witnesses before referred to, he gave the 
 name of Booth as the murderer of the President, and that of Boyle as the murderer of 
 Secretary Seward and his son, and carefully avoided intimating to either that Booth had 
 come to his house early that day and had remained there until the afternoon; that he 
 left him in his house and had furnished him a razor with which Booth attempted to disguise 
 himself by shaving off his moustache? How comes it, also, that, upon being asked by 
 those two witnesses whether the Booth who killed the President was the one who had 
 been there last fall, he answered that he did not know whether it was that man or one 
 of his brothers, but he understood he had some brothers, and added, that if it was the 
 Booth who was there last fall, he knew tkat one, but concealed the fact that this man 
 had been at his house on that day and was then at his house, and had attempted in his 
 presence to disguise his person? He was sorry, very sorry, that the thing had occurred, 
 but not so sorry as to be willing to give any evidence to these two neighbors, who were 
 manifestly honest and upright men, that the murderer had been harbored in his house 
 all day, and was probably at that moment, as his own subsequent confession shows, 
 lying concealed in his house or near by, subject to his call. This is the man who 
 undertakes to show by his own declaration, offered in evidence against my protest, of 
 what he said afterwards, on Sunday afternoon, the i6th, to his kinsman, Dr. George 
 D. Mudd, to whom he then stated that the assassination of the President was a most 
 damnable act a conclusion in which most men will agree with him, and to establish 
 which his testimony was not needed. But it is to be remarked that this accused did 
 not intimate that the man whom he knew the evening before was the murderer had 
 found refuge in his house, had disguised his person, and sought concealment in the 
 swamp upon the crutches which he had provided for him. Why did he conceal this 
 fact from his kinsman? After the church services were over, however, in another con- 
 versation on their way home, he did tell Dr. George Mudd that two suspicious persons 
 had been at his house, who had come there a little before daybreak on Saturday morn- 
 ing; that one of them had a broken leg, which he bandaged; that they got something 
 to eat at his house; that they seemed to be laboring under more excitement than prob- 
 ably would result from the injury; that they said they came from Bryantown, and 
 inquired the way to Parson Wilmer's; that while at his house one of them called for 
 a razor and shaved himself. The witness says, " I do not remember whether he said 
 that this party shaved off his whiskers or his moustache, but he altered somewhat, or 
 probably materially, his features." Finally, the prisoner, Dr. Mudd, told this witness 
 that he, in company with the younger of the two men, went down the road towards 
 Bryantown in search of a vehicle to take the wounded man away from his house. How 
 comes it that he concealed in this conversation the fact proved, that he went with 
 Herold towards Bryantown and left Herold outside of the town? How comes it that 
 in this second conversation, on Sunday, insisted upon here with such pertinacity as 
 evidence for the defense, but which had never been called for by the prosecution, he 
 concealed from his kinsman the fact which he had disclosed the day before to Hardy 
 and Farrell, that it was Booth who assassinated the President, and the fact which is 
 now disclosed by his other confessions given in evidence for the prosecution, that it was 
 Booth whom he had sheltered, concealed in his house, and aided to his hiding place in 

 
 APPENDIX. 401 
 
 the swamp? He volunteers as evidence his further statement, however, to this witness, 
 that on Sunday evening he requested the witness to state to the military authorities that 
 two suspicious persons had been at his house, and see if anything could be made of it. 
 He did not tell the witness what became of Herold, and where he parted, with him on 
 the way to Bryantown. How comes it that when he was in Bryantown on the Saturday 
 evening before, when he knew that Booth was then at his house, and that Booth was 
 the murderer of the President, he did not himself state it to the military authorities 
 then in that village, as he well knew? It is difficult to see what kindled his suspicions 
 on Sunday, if none were in his mind on Saturday, when he was in possession of the 
 fact that Booth had murdered the President and was then secreting and disguising 
 himself in the prisoner's own house. 
 
 His conversation with Gardner on the same Sunday at the church is also introduced 
 here to relieve him from the overwhelming evidences of his guilt. He communicates 
 nothing to Gardner of the fact that Booth had been in his house; nothing of the fact 
 that he knew the day before that Booth had murdered the President; nothing of the 
 fact that Booth had disguised or attempted to disguise himself; nothing of the fact that 
 he had gone with Booth's associate, Herold, in search of a vehicle, the more speedily 
 to expedite their flight; nothing of the fact that Booth had found concealment in the 
 woods and swamp near his house upon the crutches which he had furnished him. He 
 contents himself with merely stating " that we ought to raise immediately a home guard 
 to hunt up all suspicious persons passing through our section of country and arrest 
 them, for there were two suspicious persons at my house yesterday morning." 
 
 It would have looked more like aiding justice and arresting felons if he had put in 
 execution his project of a home guard on Saturday, and made it effective by the arrest 
 of the man then in his house who had lodged with him last fall, with whom he had 
 gone to purchase one of the very horses employed in this flight after the assassination, 
 whom he had visited last winter in Washington, and to whom he had pointed out the 
 very route by which he had escaped by way of his house, whom he had again visited on 
 the 3d of last March, preparatory to the commission of this great crime, and who he 
 knew, when he sheltered and concealed him in the woods on Saturday, was not merely 
 a suspicious person, but was, in fact, the murderer and assassin of Abraham Lincoln. 
 While I deem it my duty to say here, as I said before, when these declarations uttered 
 by the accused on Sunday, the i6th, to Gardner and George D. Mudd, were attempted 
 to be offered on the part of the accused, that they are in no sense evidence, and by the 
 law were wholly inadmissible, yet I state it as my conviction that, being upon the record 
 upon motion of the accused himself, so far as these declarations to Gardner and George 
 D. Mudd go, they are additional indications of the guilt of the accused in this, that 
 they are manifestly suppressions of the truth and suggestions of falsehood and decep- 
 tion; they are but the utterances and confessions of guilt. 
 
 To Lieutenant Lovett, Joshua Lloyd, and Simon Gavican, who, in pursuit of the 
 murderer, visited his house on the i8th of April, the Tuesday after the murder, he 
 denied positively, upon inquiry, that two men had passed his house, or had come to his 
 house on the morning after the assassination. Two of these witnesses swear positively 
 to his having made the denial, and the other says he hesitated to answer the question 
 he put to him; all of them agree that he afterwards admitted that two men had been 
 there, one of whom had a broken limb, which he had set; and when asked by this 
 witness who that man was, he said he did not know that the man was a stranger to 
 him, and that the two had been there but a short time. Lloyd asked him if he had
 
 402 APPENDIX. 
 
 ever seen any of the parties Booth, Herold, and Surratt, and he said he had never 
 seen them; while it is positively proved that he was acquainted with John H. Surratt, 
 who had been in his house; that he knew Booth, and had introduced Booth to Surratt 
 last winter. Afterwards, on Friday, the 2ist, he admitted to Lloyd that he had been 
 introduced to Booth last fall, and that this man who came to his house on Saturday, the 
 1 5th, remained there from about four o'clock in the morning until about four in the 
 afternoon; that one of them left his house on horseback, and the other walking. In 
 the first conversation he denied ever having seen these men. 
 
 Colonel Wells also testifies that, in his conversation with Dr. Mudd on Friday the 
 2ist, the prisoner said that he had gone to Bryantown, or near Bryantown, to see some 
 friends on Saturday, and that as he came back to his own house he saw the person he 
 afterwards supposed to be Herold passing to the left of his house toward the barn, but 
 that he did not see the other person at all after he left him in his own house about one 
 o'clock. If this statement be true, how did Dr. Mudd see the same person leave his 
 house on crutches? He further stated to this witness that he returned to his own house 
 about four o'clock in the afternoon; that he did not know this wounded man; said he 
 could not recognize him from the photograph which is of record here, but admitted 
 that he had met Booth some time in November, when he had some conversation with 
 him about lands and horses; that Booth had remained with him that night in Novem- 
 ber, and on the next day had purchased a horse. He said he had not again seen Booth 
 from the time of the introduction in November up to his arrival at his house on the 
 Saturday morning after the assassination. Is not this a confession that he did see John 
 Wilkes Booth on that morning at his house and knew it was Booth? If he did not 
 know him, how came he to make this statement to the witness: that " he had not seen 
 Booth after November prior to his arrival there on the Saturday morning ' ' ? 
 
 He had said before to the same witness he did not know the wounded man. He 
 said further to Colonel Wells, that when he went upstairs after their arrival he noticed 
 that the person he supposed to be Booth had shaved off his moustache. Is it not infer- 
 able from this declaration that he then supposed him to be Booth ? Yet he declared the 
 same afternoon, and while Booth was in his own house, that Booth was the murderer 
 of the President. One of the most remarkable statements made to this witness by the 
 prisoner was that he heard for the first time on Sunday morning, or late in the evening of 
 Saturday, that the President had been murdered! From whom did he hear it? The 
 witness (Colonel Wells) volunteers his "impression" that Dr. Mudd had said he had 
 heard it after the persons had left his house. If the " impression " of the witness thus 
 volunteered is to be taken as evidence and the counsel for the accused, judging from 
 their manner, seem to think it ought to be let this question be answered: how could 
 Dr. Mudd have made that impression upon anybody truthfully, when it is proved by 
 Farrell and Hardy that on his return from Bryantown, on Saturday afternoon, he not 
 only stated that the President, Mr. Seward, and his son had been assassinated, but that 
 Boyle had assassinated Mr. Seward, and Booth had assassinated the President? 
 Add to this the fact that he said to this witness that he left his own house at one o'clock 
 and when he returned the men were gone, yet it is in evidence, by his own declarations, 
 that Booth left his house at four o'clock on crutches, and he must have been there to 
 have seen it or he could not have known the fact. 
 
 Mr. Williams testifies that he was at Mudd's house on Tuesday, the i8th of April, 
 when he said that strangers had not been that way, and also declared that he heard, 
 for the first time, of the assassination of the President on Sunday morning at church.
 
 APPENDIX. 403 
 
 Afterwards, on Friday, the 2lst, Mr. Williams asked him concerning the men who had 
 been at his house, one of whom had a broken limb, and he confessed they had been 
 there. Upon being asked if they were Booth and Herold, he said they were not 
 that he knew Booth. I think it is fair to conclude that he did know Booth when we 
 consider the testimony_of Wiechmann, of Norton, of Evans, and all the testimony just 
 referred to, wherein he declares, himself, that he not only knew him, but that he had 
 lodged with him, and that he had himself gone with him when he purchased his horse 
 from Gardner last fall, for the very purpose of aiding the flight of himself or some of 
 his confederates. 
 
 All these circumstances taken together, which, as we have seen upon high authority, 
 are stronger as evidences of guilt than even direct testimony, leave no further room for 
 argument and no rational doubt that Doctor Samuel A. Mudd was as certainly in this 
 conspiracy as were Booth and Herold, whom he sheltered and entertained; receiving 
 them under cover of darkness on the morning after the assassination, concealing them 
 throughout that day from the hand of offended justice, and aiding them, by every 
 endeavor, to pursue their way successfully to their co-conspirator, Arnold, at Fortress 
 Monroe, and in which direction they fled until overtaken and Booth was slain. 
 
 We next find Herold and his confederate Booth, after their departure from the house 
 of Mudd, across the Potomac in the neighborhood of Port Conway, on Monday, the 
 24th of of April, conveyed in a wagon. There Herold, in order to obtain the aid of 
 Captain Jett, Ruggles, and Bainbridge, of the confederate army, said to Jett, "We 
 are the assassinators of the President "; that this was his brother with him, who, with 
 himself, belonged to A. P. Hill's corps; that his brother had been wounded at Peters- 
 burg; that their names were Boyd. He requested Jett and his rebel companions to 
 take them out of the lines. After this Booth joined these parties, was placed on Rug- 
 gles's horse, and crossed the Rappahannock River. They then proceeded to the house 
 of Garrett, in the neighborhood of Port Royal, and nearly midway between Washing- 
 ton City and Fortress Monroe, where they were to have joined Arnold. Before these 
 rebel guides and guards parted with them, Herold confessed they were traveling under 
 assumed names that his own name was Herold, and that the name of the wounded 
 man was John Wilkes Booth, "who had killed the President." The rebels left Booth 
 at Garrett's, where Herold revisited him from time to time, until they were captured. 
 At two o'clock on Wednesday morning, the 26th, a party of United States officers and 
 soldiers surrounded Garrett's barn where Booth and Herold lay concealed, and demanded 
 their surrender. Booth cursed Herold, calling him a coward, and bade him go, when 
 Herold came out and surrendered himself, was taken into custody, and is now brought 
 into court. The barn was then set on fire, when Booth sprang to his feet, amid the 
 flames that were kindling about him, carbine in hand, and approached the door, seek- 
 ing, by the flashing light of the fire, to find some new victim for his murderous hand, 
 when he was shot, as he deserved to be, by Sergeant Corbett, in order to save his com- 
 rades from wounds or death by the hands of this desperate assassin. Upon his person 
 was found the following bill of exchange : 
 
 "No. 1492. The Ontario Bank, Montreal Branch. Exchange for 61 12s. lod. 
 Montreal, 27th October, 1864. Sixty days after sight of this first of exchange, second 
 and third of the same tenor and date, pay to the order of J. Wilkes Booth 61 I2s. 
 lod. sterling, value received, and charge to the account of this office. H. Stanus, 
 manager. To Messrs. Glynn, Mills & Co., London. 
 
 Thus fell, by the hands of one of the defenders of the republic, this hired assassin,
 
 404 APPENDIX. 
 
 who, for a price, murdered Abraham Lincoln, bearing upon his person, as this bill of 
 exchange testifies, additional evidence of the fact that he had undertaken, in aid of the 
 rebellion, this work of assassination by the hands of himself and his confederates, f-or 
 such sum as the accredited agents of Jefferson Davis might pay him or them, out of the 
 funds of the Confederacy, which, as is in evidence, they had in "any amount" in 
 Canada for the purpose of rewarding conspirators, spies, poisoners, and assassins, who 
 might take service under their false commissions, and do the work of the incendiary 
 and the murderer upon the lawful representatives of the American people, to whom 
 had been entrusted the care of the republic, the maintenance of the Constitution, and 
 the execution of the laws. 
 
 The court will remember that it is in the testimony of Merritt and Montgomery and 
 Conover that Thompson and Sanders and Clay and Cleary made their boasts that they 
 had money in Canada for this very purpose. Nor is it to be overlooked or forgotten 
 that the officers of the Ontario Bank at Montreal testify that during the current year of 
 this conspiracy and assassination Jacob Thompson had on deposit in that bank the sum 
 of six hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars, and that these deposits to the credit of 
 Jacob Thompson accrued from the negotiation of bills of exchange drawn by the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury of the so-called Confederate States on Frazier, Trenholm, & Co., 
 of Liverpool, who were known to be the financial agents of the Confederate States. 
 With an undrawn deposit in this bank of four hundred and fifty-five dollars, which has 
 remained to his credit since October last, and with an unpaid bill of exchange drawn 
 by the same bank upon London, in his possession and found upon his person, Booth 
 ends his guilty career in this work of conspiracy and blood in April. 1865, as he began 
 it in October, 1864, in combination with Jefferson Davis, Jacob Thompson, George N. 
 Sanders, Clement C. Clay, William C. Cleary, Beverly Tucker, and other co-conspir- 
 ators, making use of the money of the rebel confederation to aid in the execution and 
 in the flight, bearing at the moment of his death upon his person their money, part of 
 the price which they paid for his great crime, to aid him in its consummation and secure 
 him afterwards from arrest and the just penalty which by the law of God and the law 
 of man is denounced against treasonable conspiracy and murder. 
 
 By all the testimony in the case it is, in my judgment, made as clear as any transac- 
 tion can be shown by human testimony, that John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt 
 and the several accused, David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Michael 
 O'Laughlin, Edward Spangler, Samuel Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd, 
 did, with intent to aid the existing rebellion and to subvert the Constitution and laws 
 of the United States, in the month of October last and thereafter, combine, confederate, 
 and conspire with Jefferson Davis, George N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thomp- 
 son, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and others 
 unknown, to kill and murder, within the military department of Washington, and 
 within the intrenched fortifications and military lines thereof, Abraham Lincoln, then 
 President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy thereof; 
 Andrew Johnson, Vice-President of the United States; William H. Seward, Secretary 
 of State; and Ulysses S. Grant, lieutenant general in command of the armies of the 
 United States; and that Jefferson Davis, the chief of this rebellion, was the instigator 
 and procurer, through his accredited agents in Canada, of this treasonable conspiracy. 
 
 It is also submitted to the court, that it is clearly established by the testimony that 
 John Wilkes Booth, in pursuance of this conspiracy, so entered into by him and the 
 accused, did, on the night of the I4th of April, 1865, within the military department
 
 APPENDIX. 405 
 
 of Washington, and the intrenched fortifications and military lines thereof, and with 
 the intent laid, inflict a mortal wound upon Abraham Lincoln, then President and Com- 
 mander -in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States, whereof he died; that in 
 pursuance of the same conspiracy and within the said department and intrenched lines, 
 Lewis Payne assaulted, with intent to kill and murder, William H. Seward, then Secre- 
 tary of State of the United States; that George A. Atzerodt, in pursuance of the same 
 conspiracy, and within the said department, laid in wait, with intent to kill and murder 
 Andrew Johnson, then Vice-President of the United States; that Michael O'Laughlin, 
 within said department, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, laid in wait to kill and 
 murder Ulysses S. Grant, then in command of the armies of the United States; and 
 that Mary E. Surratt, David E. Herold, Samuel Arnold, Samuel A. Mudd, and Edward 
 Spangler did encourage, aid, and abet the commission of said several acts in the prose- 
 cution of said conspiracy. 
 
 If this treasonable conspiracy has not been wholly executed; if the several executive 
 officers of the United States and the commander of its armies, to kill and murder whom 
 the said several accused thus confederated and conspired, have not each and all fallen 
 by the hands of these conspirators, thereby leaving the people of the United States 
 without a President or Vice-President; without a Secretary of State, who alone is 
 clothed with authority by the law to call an election to fill the vacancy, should any 
 arise, in the offices of President and Vice-President; and without a lawful commander 
 of the armies of the republic, it is only because the conspirators were deterred by the 
 vigilance and fidelity of the executive officers, whose lives were rriercifully protected on 
 that night of murder by the care of the Infinite Being who has thus far saved the repub- 
 lic and crowned its arms with victory. 
 
 If this conspiracy was thus entered into by the accused; if John Wilkes Booth did 
 kill and murder Abraham Lincoln in pursuance thereof; if Lewis Payne did, in pursu- 
 ance of said conspiracy, assault with intent to kill and murder William H. Seward, as 
 stated, and if the several parties accused did commit the several acts alleged against 
 them in the prosecution of said conspiracy, then it is the law that all the parties to that 
 conspiracy, whether present at the time of its execution or not, whether on trial before 
 this court or not, are alike guilty of the several acts done by each in the execution of 
 the common design. What these conspirators did in the execution of this conspiracy 
 by the hand of one of their co-conspirators they did themselves; his act, done in the 
 prosecution of the common design, was the act of all the parties to the treasonable 
 combination, because done in execution and furtherance of their guilty and treasonable 
 agreement. 
 
 As we have seen, this is the rule, whether all the conspirators are indicted or not; 
 whether they are all on trial or not. " It is not material what the nature of the indict- 
 ment is, provided the offense involve a conspiracy. Upon indictment for murder, for 
 instance, if it appear that others, together with the prisoner, conspired to perpetrate the 
 crime, the act of one done in pursuance of that intention would be evidence against 
 the rest." (i Whar. 706.) To the same effect are the words of Chief Justice Mar- 
 ' shall, before cited, that whoever leagued in a general conspiracy, performed any part, 
 however MINUTE, or however REMOTE, from the scene of action, are guilty as princi- 
 pals. In this treasonable conspiracy to aid the existing armed rebellion by murdering 
 the executive officers of the United States and the commander of its armies, all the 
 parties to it must be held as principals, and the act of one in the prosecution of the 
 common design the act of all.
 
 406 APPENDIX. 
 
 I leave the decision of this dread issue with the court, to which alone it belongs. 
 It is for you to say, upon your oaths, whether the accused are guilty. 
 
 I am not conscious that in this argument I have made any erroneous statement of 
 the evidence, or drawn any erroneous conclusions; yet I pray the court, out of tender 
 regard and jealous care for the rights of the accused, to see that no error of mine, if 
 any there be, shall work them harm. The past services of the members of this honor- 
 able court give assurance that, without fear, favor, or affection, they will discharge with 
 fidelity the duty enjoined upon them by their oaths. Whatever else may befall, I trust 
 in God that in this, as in every other American court, the rights of the whole people 
 will be respected, and that the republic in this, its supreme hour of trial, will be true 
 to itself and just to all ready to protect the rights of the humblest, to redress every 
 wrong, to avenge every crime, to vindicate the majesty of law, and to maintain invio- 
 late the Constitution, whether assailed secretly or openly, by hosts armed with gold, or 
 armed with steel.
 
 THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PRESIDENT JOHNSON 
 AND JUDGE HOLT. 
 
 A Paper read by GEN. HENRY L. BURNETT, late U. S. V., at a Meeting of the Com- 
 mandery, State of New Vork, Military Order, Loyal Legion, April j, 1889. 
 
 PERHAPS no incident connected with the trial of the assassins of President Lincoln 
 created more general interest was so much discussed and commented upon by the 
 public press, or aroused deeper feeling of antagonism and bitterness between two public 
 men, than the charge by President Johnson that the Judge Advocate General, Judge 
 Holt, had withheld or suppressed the recommendation to mercy of Mrs. Surratt, signed 
 by five members of the commission, .when he represented to him, the President, the 
 record for his official action. While this charge had circulation and was asserted in the 
 press during the time Mr. Johnson was occupying the presidential office, Mr. Johnson 
 never openly made the charge until after his term had expired, some time in 1873. 
 
 No graver charge could be made against a public officer than this against Judge 
 Holt, and, if true, no more cruel and treacherous betrayal of a public trust was ever 
 committed by a man in high official position. It would be murderous in intent and 
 effect. This charge rested, so far as human testimony went, upon the solemn assertion 
 alone of President Johnson, and, if untrue, was one of the most cruel wrongs ever 
 perpetrated by one man against another. I propose to give a brief abstract of the testi- 
 mony produced by Judge Holt to disprove this charge, and also a statement of my 
 connection with, and what little personal knowledge I had of the matter. 
 
 In a communication addressed to the Washington Chronicle, dated August 25, 
 1873, Judge Holt gives a copy of a letter addressed by him to the Secretary of War, on 
 the I4th of that month, in which he sets forth evidence tending to disprove the charge 
 originating with Andrew Johnson, of his suppression of the petition, signed by five of 
 the nine members of the commission, recommending, in consideration of her age and 
 sex, a commutation of the death sentence of Mary E. Surratt to imprisonment for life 
 in the penitentiary. The petition read as follows: " To the President : The undersigned, 
 members of the military commission appointed to try the persons charged with the 
 murder of Abraham Lincoln, etc., respectfully represent that the commission have been 
 constrained to find Mary E. Surratt guilty, upon the testimony, of the assassination of 
 Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States, and to pronounce upon her, as 
 required by law, the sentence of death; but in consideration of her age and sex, the 
 undersigned pray your Excellency, if it is consistent with your sense of duty, to commute 
 her sentence to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary." 
 
 In a letter dated February n, 1873, addressed to Hon. John A. Bingham, one of 
 the special Judge Advocates during the trial, Judge Holt states: "In the discharge of 
 my duty when presenting that record to President Johnson, I drew his attention to that 
 
 407
 
 4O8 THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 recommendation, and he read it in my presence, and before approving the proceedings 
 and sentence. He and I were together alone when this duty on his part and on mine 
 was performed. . . . The President and myself having, as already stated, been 
 alone at the time, I have not been able to obtain any .positive proof on the point, 
 although I have been able to collect circumstantial evidence enough to satisfy any un- 
 biased mind that the recommendation was seen and considered by the President, 
 when he examined and approved the proceeding and sentence of the court. Still, in a 
 matter so deeply affecting my reputation and official honor, I am naturally desirous of 
 having the testimony in my possession strengthened as far as practicable, and hence it is 
 that I trouble you with this note. While I know that the question of extending to Mrs. 
 Surratt the clemency sought by the petition was considered by the President at the time 
 mentioned, I have, in view of its gravity, been always satisfied that it must have been 
 considered by the Cabinet also; but from the confidential character of Cabinet delibera- 
 tions I have thus far been denied access to this source of information." He then 
 proceeds to inquire whether or not he (Judge Bingham) had any conversation with 
 Secretary Seward or Mr. Stanton in reference to this petition, and if so to please give 
 him as nearly as he (Judge Bingham) could, all that Secretary Seward or Mr. Stanton 
 had said upon the subject. 
 
 Judge Bingham replied under date of February 17, 1873, and among other things 
 said: 
 
 " Before the President had acted upon the case, I deemed it my duty to call the 
 attention of Secretary Stanton to the petition for the commutation of sentence upon Mrs. 
 Surratt, and did call his attention to it, before the final decision of the President. 
 After the execution, the statement which you refer to was made that President Johnson 
 had not seen the petition for the commutation of the death sentence upon Mrs. Surratt. 
 I afterwards called at your office, and, without notice to you of my purpose, asked for 
 the record of the case of the assassins; it was opened and shown me, and there was- 
 then attached to it the petition, copied and signed as hereinbefore stated. Soon there- 
 after I called upon Secretaries Stanton and Seward and asked if this petition had been 
 presented to the President before the death sentence was by him approved, and was 
 answered by each of those gentlemen that the petition was presented to the President, 
 and was duly considered by him and his advisers before the death sentence upon Mrs. 
 Surratt was approved, and that the President and Cabinet, upon such consideration, 
 were a unit in denying the prayer of the petition; Mr. Stanton and Mr. Seward stating 
 that they were present. 
 
 " Having ascertained the fact as stated, I then desired to make the same public, and 
 so expressed myself to Mr. Stanton, who advised me not to do so, but to rely upon the 
 final judgement of the people." 
 
 In replying to this letter, Judge Holt very justly remarks: " It would have been very 
 fortunate for me indeed could I have had this testimony in my possession years ago. 
 Mr. Stanton's advice to you was, under all the circumstances of the case, most 
 extraordinary. 
 
 ..( 
 
 "The asking you 'to rely upon the final judgment of the people,' and at the same 
 time withholding from them the proof on which the judgment to be just must be 
 formed, was a sad, sad mockery."
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND JUDGE HOLT. 409 
 
 The next is a letter from ex-Attorney General Speed, dated March 30, 1873, in which 
 he says: " After the finding of the military commission that tried the assassins of Mr. 
 Lincoln and before their execution, I saw the record of the case in the President's 
 office, and attached to it was a paper, signed by some of the members of the commission, 
 recommending that the sentence against Mrs. Surratt be commuted to imprisonment for 
 life; and according to my memory, the recommendation was made because of her sex. 
 
 "I do not feel at liberty to speak of what was said at Cabinet meetings. In this I 
 know I differ from other gentlemen, but feel constrained to follow my own sense of 
 propriety." 
 
 So that it is most clear from this statement of Attorney General Speed, unless he, 
 without interest or motive, stated a most deliberate falsehood, that Judge Holt did not 
 " withhold " or " suppress " the recommendation to mercy, but carried it with the record 
 and " attached to it, " as Mr. Speed says, and deliveredit in the President's office. 
 Certainly every intelligent mind will concede that this testimony of Mr. Speed utterly 
 disposes of the charge of Andrew Johnson that Judge Holt "suppressed" or "with- 
 held" this recommendation to mercy. If Mr. Johnson did not see it or read it when 
 in his office, that was his neglect, his failure to perform a solemn official duty. But on 
 this question of his having read and considered it, how stands the evidence? Judge 
 Holt states that he drew his attention to it, and that Mr. Johnson read it in his presence. 
 Judge Bingham says both Mr. Stanton and Mr. Seward stated to him that this petition 
 had been presented to the President and was duly considered by him and his advisers 
 before the death sentence upon Mrs. Surratt was approved. Under date of May 27, 
 1873, James Harlan, a former member of Mr. Johnson's Cabinet, addressed a letter to 
 Judge Holt, in which he said: "After the sentence and before the execution of Mrs. 
 Surratt, I remember distinctly the discussion of the question of the commutation of the 
 sentence of death pronounced on her by the Court to imprisonment for life had by 
 members of the Cabinet in presence of President Johnson. I can not state positively 
 whether this occurred at a regular or a called meeting, or whether it was at an 
 accidental meeting of several members, each calling on the President in relation to the 
 business of his own department. The impression on my mind is, that the only discus- 
 sion of the subject by members of the Cabinet, which I ever heard, occurred in the last- 
 named mode, there being not more than three or four members present Mr. Seward, 
 Mr. Stanton, and myself, and probably Attorney General Speed and others but I 
 distinctly remember only the first two. When I entered the room, one of these was 
 addressing the President in an earnest conversation on the question whether the sentence 
 ought to be modified on account of the sex of the condemned. I can recite the precise 
 thought, if not the very words, used by this eminent statesman, as they were impressed 
 on my mind with great force at the time, and I have often thought of them since, viz. : 
 ' Surely not, Mr. President, for if the death penalty should be commuted in so grave a 
 case as the assassination of the head of a great nation, on account of the sex of the 
 criminal, it would amount to an invitation to assassins hereafter to employ women as their 
 instruments, under the belief that if arrested and condemned, they would be punished 
 less severely than men. An act of executive clemency on such a plea would be disap- 
 proved by the government of every civilized nation on earth.' " 
 
 Judge Harlan adds that he made inquiry at the time, and "was told that the whole 
 case had been carefully examined by the Attorney General and the Secretary of War; 
 and that the only question raised was whether the punishment shall be reduced on 
 account of the sex of the party condemned. I do not remember that any differences of 
 opinion were expressed on that point."
 
 41 THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 This is indirect but very conclusive evidence that the petition was attached to the 
 record submitted to the President and examined by the Attorney General and Secretary 
 of War; and that the subject of the mitigation of Mrs. Surratt's sentence was considered 
 by the President and these members of his Cabinet, because in no part of the record 
 was there the slightest allusion to the question of clemency to Mrs. Surratt, or to any of 
 the other convicted persons, except in the petition signed by the five members of the 
 Court. 
 
 The next is a letter from the Rev. J. George Butler, pastor of St. Paul's Church, 
 Washington. Under date of December 5, 1868, in describing an interview he had with 
 President Johnson, he says: "The interview occurred during a social call upon the 
 family of the President in the evening, a few hours after the execution. 
 
 " I had been summoned by the Government, I then being a hospital chaplain, to 
 attend upon Atzerodt, and was present at the execution. 
 
 " Concerning Mrs. Surratt, the remarks of the President, by reason of their point ana 
 force, impressed themselves upon my memory. He said, in substance, that very strong 
 appeals had been made for the exercise of executive clemency; that he had been 
 importuned; that telegrams and threats had been used; but he could not be moved, 
 for, in his own significant language, Mrs. Surratt 'kept the nest that hatched the eggs.' 
 
 "The President further stated that no plea had been urged in her behalf, save the 
 fact that she was a woman, and his interposition upon that ground would license female 
 crime." 
 
 This harmonizes entirely with the " thought " which Secretary Harlan heard uttered 
 with so much force by a member of the Cabinet in Mr. Johnson's presence either Mr. 
 Stanton or Mr. Seward and from his language, " this eminent statesman, " I take it 
 to have been Mr. Seward. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Butler adds: " I feel it due to a Christian soldier and personal friend 
 (General Eakin) to make this statement, showing clearly that at the time of the execution 
 the President's judgment wholly accorded with the judgment of the military commission; 
 and that no appeals could then change his purpose to make ' treason odious.' " 
 
 General R. D. Mussey, under date of August 19, 1873, writes to Judge Holt: 
 
 " In a few days after the assassination I was detailed for duty with Mr. Johnson and 
 acted as one of his secretaries, and was an inmate of his household until some time in 
 the fall of 1865. 
 
 "About the time the military court that tried Mrs. Surratt concluded its labors, I 
 was, if I remember aright, for some days the only person acting as private secretary at 
 the White House, my associate being absent on a visit. 
 
 ' ' On the Wednesday previous to the execution ( which was on Friday, July 7, 1 865 ) , as 
 I was sitting at my desk in the morning, Mr. Johnson told me that he was going to look 
 over the findings of the Court with Judge Holt, and should be busy and could see no 
 one. I replied, ' Very well, sir, I will see that you not interrupted, ' or something to 
 that effect, and continued my work. I think it was two or three hours after that that 
 Mr. Johnson came out of the room where he had been with you, and said that the papers 
 had been looked over and a decision reached. I asked what it was. He told me, ap- 
 proval of the findings and sentence of the Court; and he then gave me the sentences as 
 near as he remembered them, and said that he had ordered the sentence where it was 
 death to be carried into execution on the Friday following. I remember looking up 
 from my desk with some surprise at the brevity of this interval, and asking him whether 
 the time wasn't rather short. He admitted that it was, but said that they had had ever
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND JUDGE HOLT. 41 1 
 
 since the trial began for ' preparation ' ; and either then or later on in the day spoke of 
 his design in making the time short, so that there might be less opportunity for criticism, 
 remonstrance, etc. I do not pretend to use his precise language as to this, but the pur- 
 port of it was that ' it was a disagreeable duty, and there would be endeavors to get him 
 not to perform it, and he wished to avoid them as much as possible.' . . . I am very 
 confident, though not absolutely assured, that it was at this interview Mr. Johnson told 
 me that the Court had recommended Mrs. Surratt to mercy on the ground of her sex 
 (and age, I believe). But I am certain he did so inform me about that time; and that 
 he said he thought the grounds urged insufficient, and that he had refused to interfere; 
 that if she was guilty at all, her sex did not make her any the less guilty; that he, about 
 the time of her execution, justified it; that he told me there had not been women enough 
 hanged in this war. " 
 
 This evidence would seem to establish most conclusively that the, " petition " was 
 not only attached to the record, and delivered by Judge Holt at the President's office in 
 the Executive Mansion, but that he read the same and afterward considered and dis- 
 cussed it with at least three members of his Cabinet; and intelligent charity can reach 
 no further than to say that President Johnson, when he charged Judge Holt with having 
 withheld this recommendation to mercy when he delivered the record of the trial at the 
 President's Mansion, made a cruel and untruthful charge; and that when he asserted in 
 1873 that he had not seen, read, or heard of this recommendation to mercy, at the time 
 he approved the sentences on the 5th day of July, 1865, had forgotten the facts that 
 his " forgettery " was much better than his memory. 
 
 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 Mr. Ben. 
 Pittmann, of Cincinnati, under my official supervision, this recommendation to mercy 
 does not appear. There is no force in this. The petition or recommendation to mercy 
 constituted properly no part of the official record of the trial. Mr. Pittmann, who had 
 his desk and place in my office at the War Department, was one of the official stenog- 
 raphers of the court, and had special charge and custody of the record from day to day. 
 The other reporters sent in to him their portions of the testimony as they were written up, 
 and thereafter he was responsible for them. My recollection is also that as the testimony 
 was written up a press copy was made of it, which he (Mr. Pittmann) took with him to 
 Cincinnati, and used, after he had received permission from the War Department to 
 publish. 
 
 The commission met with closed doors at 10 A. M. on the agth of June to consider 
 its findings, and continued and concluded its labors with closed doors on the 3oth. 
 From these meetings all stenographic reporters were excluded. The findings and sen- 
 tences, when finally made and recorded, were handed to me to be attached to the record, 
 or to go with the record to the Judge Advocate General's office, as was then the course 
 of procedure. By the oath administered, all the members of the commission, as well as 
 the Judge Advocates, were bound not to reveal those findings and sentences. I there- 
 fore retained them in my possession, instead of passing them on to the stenographers. 
 When the recommendation to mercy was drawn, and signed by five members of the 
 commission, that was also handed to me to accompany the findings. 
 
 Mr. Pittmann never saw, I presume, either the original findings or the recommendation 
 to mercy, and the first knowledge he had of the former doubtless was after they were 
 promulgated by the Adjutant General on the 5th day of July. This is evidenced by the 
 fact that the Adjutant General, in promulgating the proceedings, took Mrs. Surratt's
 
 412 THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 name from the position it occupies in the records, and placed it next that of Payne,, 
 evidently for the purpose of grouping together the four persons condemned to death., 
 Mr. Pittmann gives the findings and sentence in the order promulgated by the Adjutant 
 General that is to say, he places the findings and sentence in Mrs. Surratt's case next 
 after that of Lewis Payne; while the Court, in making up its findings, followed the order 
 named in the charge and specifications, where Mrs. Surratt's name follows that of Sam- 
 uel Arnold. 
 
 When I reached my office at the War Department on the 3oth possibly on the 
 morning of the 1st of July I attached the petition or recommendation to mercy of Mrs. 
 Surratt to the findings and sentence, and at the end of them, and then directed some one 
 
 probably Mr. Pittmann to carry the record of the evidence to the Judge Advocate- 
 General's office. I carried the findings and sentences and the petition or recommendation 
 and delivered them to the Judge Advocate General in person or to the clerk in charge 
 of court-martial records. Before leaving the War Department I may have attached these 
 findings and sentences and petition to the last few days of testimony, and carried that to 
 the Judge Advocate General's office. I never saw the record again until many years after 
 
 I think in 1873 or 1874. 
 
 I left Washington several days before, and was not there on the day of the execution. 
 My recollection is, that I left there either on the evening of the 5th or on the morning of 
 the 6th of July. On the 5th day of July, when Judge Holt had his conference with 
 President Johnson over the record and proceedings of the military commission, when the 
 President considered and passed upon the findings and sentences of the accused persons, 
 after that interview Judge Holt came directly to Mr. Stanton's office in the War Depart- 
 ment. I happened to be with Mr. Stanton as Judge Holt came in. After greetings, 
 the latter remarked, " I have just come from a conference with the President over the 
 proceedings of the military commission. " " Well, " said Mr. Stanton, " what has he 
 done?" " He has approved the findings and sentence of the Court," replied Judge Holt. 
 
 " What did he say about the recommendation to mercy of Mrs. Surratt? " next in- 
 quired Mr. Stanton. " He said, " answered Judge Holt, " that she must be punished 
 with the rest ; that no reasons were given for his interposition by those asking for clem- 
 ency, in her case, except age and sex. He said her sex furnished no good ground for 
 his interfering; that women and men should learn that if women committed crimes they 
 would be punished; that if they entered into conspiracies to assassinate, they must suffer 
 the penalty; that were this not so, hereafter conspirators and assassins would use women 
 as their instruments; it would be mercy to womankind to let Mrs. Surratt suffer the pen- 
 alty of her crime. " After some futher conversation, and after making known to Mr. 
 Stanton that the President had fixed Friday, the 7th, as the day of execution, Judge 
 Holt left. In giving the above conversation I cannot say that I have given the exact 
 words; but the substance of what Judge Holt said I know I have given. It is indelibly 
 impressed upon my memory. This conversation, while it does not constitute legal evi- 
 dence of the fact of President Johnson's consideration of the recommendation to mercy, 
 has always been a circumstance strong and convincing to my mind that President John- 
 son's charge was totally false. It showed that Mr. Stanton had knowledge of the recom- 
 mendation probably had examined the record in the four or five days which had inter- 
 vened since the trial. As Secretary of War he was at that time daily almost hourly in 
 1 consultation with the President over the disbandment of the military forces; the occupation 
 by the army of the rebel States; the powers and duties of officers there, and the in- 
 numerable questions semi-military in character arising out of the chaotic political and
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND JUDGE HOLT- 413 
 
 social condition of the rebel States; and they could hardly have come together at that time 
 without the question of the conviction and execution of the assassins coming up. The 
 circumstances of the assassination, the plot or conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln 
 and his Cabinet, the Vice President himself, and General Grant; who were concerned 
 in it; the evidence submitted to the Court, the weight given to it by the Court, and the 
 conclusion reached by the Court, were matters in which the President and the Secretary 
 of War could not fail to take, and, as is well known, did take the deepest possible interest. 
 It is past human credulity to believe that they would thus come together during the time 
 intervening between the conclusion of the trial on the 3Oth day of June and the execution 
 of the sentences on the 7th of July, and the result of the trial, together with the recom- 
 mendation to mercy, not be discussed between them. It is inconceivable to me that 
 Judge Holt, even if he were so malicious and murderous in purpose, could be so reck- 
 less and foolish in execution of such purpose as to withhold from and- try to conceal from 
 President Johnson this recommendation to mercy, when the fact of its existence was 
 known to Mr. Stanton, and was so certain to be made known to the President by him, 
 and its contents discussed between them. 
 
 The historian in passing judgment upon this event, and in weighing evidence as to 
 the truth or falsity of this charge made by President Johnson, will take into considera- 
 tion the mental characteristics and moral fibre of the two men, and what adequate 
 motive there was actuating one occupying the exalted position of President Johnson to 
 make the charge, or of Judge Holt to commit so wicked and cruel a wrong. 
 
 Andrew Johnson's mental make-up is well known to the officers of the old Union 
 army, and to the American people. His life, his acts, and his speeches are still remem- 
 bered, and the public judgment formed and registered. I do not propose here to-night 
 to take your time in going into a statement or discussion of this subject. It is sufficient 
 to say that he was endowed by nature with more than ordinary intellectual abilities, 
 and that he had risen from the lowest walks of life by the vigor ot his own will, energy, 
 and mental power, through many intermediate places of honor and trust, to the second 
 place in the gift of the American people theVice-Presidency of the United States. 
 He was a man of controlling prejudices and strong personality. He was ambitious, 
 bold, hot-tempered, obstinate, and in the achievement of the ends and aims he 
 sought right ends and aims he may have thought them he was unscrupulous in the 
 means he used. This is well illustrated in the instance given by General Sheridan in 
 his memoirs of President Johnson's treatment of him while he was in command of New 
 Orleans in 1866. 
 
 You will recall the intense feeling aroused throughout the country by the wanton and 
 bloody massacre of the convention assembled at New Orleans, on the 3Oth of July, that 
 year, to remodel the constitution of that State. General Sheridan had been absent 
 several days in Texas, and was returning, when the riot occurred. He reached New 
 Orleans August ist, made an investigation, and on the same day sent the following 
 telegraphic report to General Grant : 
 
 " You are doubtless aware of the serious riot which occurred in this city on the 3Oth. 
 Apolitical body styling themselves the 'Convention of 1864,' met on the 3Oth for, as it 
 alleged, the purpose of remodeling the present constitution of the State. The leaders 
 were political agitators and revolutionary men, and the action of the convention was 
 liable to produce breaches of the public peace. I had made up my mind to arrest the 
 head men if the proceedings of the convention were calculated to disturb the tranquility 
 of the department, but I had no cause for action until they committed some overt act.
 
 41 4 THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 In the meantime official duty called me to Texas, and the mayor of the city, during my 
 absence, suppressed the convention by the use of the police force, and in so doing 
 attacked the members of the convention and a party of two hundred negroes with fire- 
 arms, clubs, and knives, in a manner so unnecessary and atrocious as to compel me to 
 say that it was murder. About forty whites and blacks were thus killed, and about one 
 hundred and sixty wounded. Everything is now quiet, but I deem it best to maintain 
 a military supremacy in the city for a few days, until the affair is fully investigated. I 
 believe the sentiment of the general community is great regret at this unnecessary 
 cruelty, and that the police could have made any arrest they saw fit without sacrificing 
 lives. "P. H. SHERIDAN, 
 
 ' ' Major General commanding. ' ' 
 \ 
 
 General Sheridan adds: " On receiving the telegram, General Grant immediately 
 submitted it to the President. Much clamor being made at the North for the publica- 
 tion of the despatch, President Johnson pretended to give it to the newspapers. It 
 appeared in the issues of August 4th, but with this paragraph omitted, viz. : 
 
 " ' I had made up my mind to arrest the head men, if the proceedings were calcu- 
 lated to disturb the tranquilly of the department, but I had no cause for action until 
 they committed some overt act. In the meantime official duty called me to Texas, and 
 the mayor of the city, during my absence, suppressed the convention by the use of the 
 police force, and in so doing attacked the members of the convention and a party of two 
 hundred negroes with fire-arms, clubs, and knives, in a manner so unnecessary and 
 atrocious as to compel me to say it was murder.' " 
 
 General Sheridan adds: "Against this garbling of my report, done by the Presi- 
 dent's own order, I strongly demurred, and this emphatic protest marks the beginning 
 of Mr. Johnson's well-known personal hostility toward me." 
 
 It will be observed that the omission of this portion of the despatch this "gar- 
 bling," done by President Johnson's own order changes its whole tenor and meaning; 
 made General Sheridan say exactly contrary to what he did in fact say. Omitting the 
 part struck out, and connecting the two sentences that come together, the President 
 made the despatch read: "The leaders were political agitators and revolutionary men, 
 and the action of the convention was liable to produce breaches of the public peace. 
 About forty whites and blacks were thus killed, and about one hundred and sixty 
 wounded." 
 
 Observe this makes General Sheridan say that the action of the convention was 
 liable to produce breaches of the public peace, and thus, in this wise, about forty 
 whites and blacks were killed and about one hundred and sixty wounded. General 
 Sheridan said nothing of the kind nothing in the whole despatch had any such impli- 
 cation or meaning. What he did say was that the mayor of the city " suppressed the 
 convention by the use of the police force, and in so doing attacked the members of the 
 convention and a party of two hundred negroes with fire-arms, clubs, and knives, in a 
 manner so unnecessary and atrocious as to compel me to say that it was murder ' ' ; and 
 "thus" by this means, by this mayor and his police, about forty whites and blacks 
 were killed and about one hundred and sixty wounded. 
 
 Is it too much to say that a man who could do this wrong to General Sheridan, 
 could mutilate and corrupt a despatch so as to cause him to make a false report about a 
 people over whom he was placed in government; to cause him to state falsely the facts
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON ND JUDGE HOLT. 415 
 
 and circumstances about an event in which forty persons had lost their lives, and one 
 hundred and sixty had been grievously wounded, would hesitate to state a falsehood 
 about Judge Holt? Is it too much to say that a man who could do this, and then try 
 to mislead and deceive the people of the United States as to this tragic event, about 
 which they were clamoring to know the truth, perpetrating a lie upon them by mutilating 
 and corrupting a despatch and promulgating it as the true one, would hesitate to deceive 
 the people about the fact as to whether he did or did not see the recommendation to 
 mercy of Mrs. Surratt ? Is it not fair to say that he was of such mental structure and 
 moral fibre as to do this wrong? 
 
 And now the motive: 
 
 It is known of all men that Andrew Johnson had only fairly settled himself in the 
 presidential chair of the great Lincoln, before he began to dream, to scheme, and to- 
 intrigue for an election by the people to that office. 
 
 The presidential bee was buzzing under the accidental presidential hat. The Southern 
 leaders, clever diplomats and long-headed politicans as they are, soon took the measure 
 of the man, and began to consider how best they could use him, and his ambition for their 
 own purposes. It was noticed that Andrew Johnson had not been many months in the 
 White House before there was a decided change in the style and type of visitors passing 
 in and out under the great white portico. The men of the North, the old "Union 
 Republican group " of the House and Senate that were daily visitors there in the days of 
 Lincoln, began to find the atmosphere of the White House less kind and congenial; there 
 was a lack of warmth in the welcome, and a constraint in talk and exchange of ideas, 
 progressing gradually to actual antagonism over the questions of amnesty, reconstruc- 
 tion, and constitutional guarantees to the freedmen. Then the Northern men dropped 
 away; seemed not to go there any more. Men from the South who but lately had borne 
 arms against the government, and who had not yet taken the oath of allegiance, were 
 found plentiful about the White House, and apparently basking in the sunshine of presi- 
 dential favor, as in the rays of a southern sun. It became the reign of the unreconstructed 
 and unreconciled. Somebody had whispered loud enough for Mr. Johnson to hear, 
 perhaps the bee buzzed it, that if the Southern States could be reconstructed previous to- 
 the presidential convention of 1868, and he (President Johnson) should be found friendly 
 and faithful to the South in that work, there were fifteen Southern States whose electoral 
 votes might be found solid for him as the Democratic nominee, and he would only need 
 the votes of two or three Northern States in addition to carry off the nomination. You 
 know how the poison took how from the most radical of Union Republicans he be- 
 came the most extreme the leader of the " strictest sect " of the Democrats; how the 
 words " treason should be made odious," " traitors should take back seats," " a few trai- 
 tors should be hung," with which his mouth was filled when elected, and were still sound- 
 ing in the air when he sat down in Lincoln's vacant chair, had hardly died away before 
 he had turned against and upon all those who had upheld the Union cause all his old 
 Union friends; how he fought the Congress with a bitterness and a boldness unparalleled 
 in history. He took issue with it on every measure by which the Congress sought to fix 
 in statute and in the fundamental law what the sword had achieved, what war had 
 enacted. Thus he stood. 
 
 And now turning to Mrs. Surratt and her case. Over her execution a great clamor 
 was raised throughout the country, not only by those who were lately in rebellion, and 
 those in the North who were in sympathy with that rebellion, but almost universally 
 by the Roman Catholics of the country, she being a member of that Church, they
 
 41 6 THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 believing her innocent and a martyr. Mr. Johnson heard this clamor, and " his 
 startled ambition grew sore afraid." He bethought him of some means to turn this 
 wrath away from himself. The press kept referring to the fact that a recommendation 
 to mercy had been signed by a majority of the Court ; and his new friends and allies 
 were calling upon him with a loud voice to know why he had riot heeded the appeal 
 for mercy, and saved this hapless woman. His fears whispered that the storm might 
 grow so fierce and strong 'as to sweep away his carefully constructed political fabric. 
 How could he turn away this wrath and clamor? How turn the fury of the storm? 
 Were here not motive and interest enough? He doubtless remembered that, when he 
 examined the record, he and Judge Holt had been alone. How easy to shift the blame, 
 to turn the storm of wrath and execration upon another head by having it circulated 
 that the recommendation had been suppressed by Judge Holt, and that he had never 
 seen nor heard of it up to the time of the execution ! Here was a sufficient motive 
 the motive of ambition the motive which, as we have seen, changed the whole nature 
 of the man, - changed his political thought and attitude spoiled the purpose of his 
 life. 
 
 Of Judge Holt's life little need be said. Born and reared in Kentucky, of the best 
 blood of the State, he had achieved fame and stood in the front rank with the great 
 lawyers and orators of that State before the rebellion began, and before he was called to 
 the Cabinet of James Buchanan, first, as Postmaster-General, and afterward as Secre- 
 tary of War, to fill the place made vacant by the retirement of the traitor John B. 
 Floyd. Judge Holt was a man of collegiate education, a student and a scholar of wide 
 and varied reading, and a rhetorician and logician second to few men in the country. 
 Of the next generation after Henry Clay, he was of the time and type in intellectual 
 grasp and power of the Marshalls, the Breckinridges, and the Crittendens of that State. 
 He breathed in the spirit of loyalty, patriotism, and love of the Union of Clay, and 
 never doubted, never swerved in giving all his powers in dedicating his life to the 
 work of saving the Union. It is related by the historian that at one of the Cabinet 
 meetings of President Buchanan, when several of the Southern secretaries were still 
 occupying their places and were boldly demanding that the forts at Charlestown should 
 be evacuated, and Mr. Buchanan was too weak to take a position against them, Mr. 
 Stanton, who had been called to fill the office of Attorney General, sprang to his feet 
 and said, " Mr. President, it is my duty, as your legal adviser, to say that you have no 
 right to give up the property of the government, or abandon the soldiers of the United 
 States to its enemies, and the course proposed by the Secretary of the Interior, if fol- 
 lowed, is treason, and will involve you and all concerned in treason! " For the first 
 time in this Cabinet treason had been called by its true name. Floyd and Thompson, 
 who had had everything their own way, sprang fiercely to their feet, while Mr. 'Holt sprang 
 to Mr. Stanton's side, indorsing his utterances, and ready to uphold him in any struggle. 
 Mr. Buchanan begged that there would be no violence, and for the gentlemen to resume 
 their seats. Thus bolstered by Mr. Stanton and Judge Holt, the President determined 
 not to withdraw Major Anderson. Soon after this meeting, Floyd resigned, and Judge 
 Holt was appointed Secretary of War in his place. 
 
 Save this charge of Andrew Johnson, no stain or blot, nor the least spot or soilure, 
 has ever rested on the fair name and fame of Joseph Holt. For the last year or two 
 of the war I was brought in close official and personal relations with him. I learned to 
 know him well. He was most refined and sensitive in his nature, gentle and kindly in 
 his intercourse, and in all his relations with those about him, pure in his private life,
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND JUDGE HOLT. 417 
 
 exalted in his ideas and ideals, dignified, and courtly in his bearing, yet always thought- 
 ful, considerate, and courteous. He had traveled much, read much, and held as his 
 friends, strongly attached to him, the best men of the land. I can now as little associate 
 him in my mind with the commission of a dishonorable action as any man I have ever 
 known. 
 
 One of the interesting episodes connected with this charge against Judge Holt is his 
 appeal to Mr. Speed, Mr. Lincoln's Attorney General, to " speak out " and state the 
 fact whether or not the recommendation to mercy was before President Johnson and his 
 Cabinet, and considered by them. The correspondence between Judge Holt and Mr. 
 Speed is published in the North American Review for July, 1888. It will be remem- 
 bered that Mr. Speed, in his letter to Judge Holt of March 30, 1873, had said: 
 
 "After the finding of the military commission that tried the assassins of Mr. Lincoln, 
 and before their execution, I saw the record of the case in the President's office, and 
 attached to it was a paper, signed by some of the members of the commission, recom- 
 mending that the sentence against Mrs. Surratt be commuted to imprisonment for life; 
 and according to my memory the recommendation was made because of her sex." 
 
 As I have heretofore said, this settled, so far as the testimony of James Speed could 
 settle it, that the charge of Andrew Johnson that Judge Holt had withheld the 
 recommendation to mercy was false. It settled the fact that previous to the execution 
 the recommendation to mercy was in the President's office, and was attached to the 
 record. But in this letter Mr. Speed added: " I do not feel at liberty to speak of what 
 was said at Cabinet meetings. In this case I know I differ from other gentlemen, but 
 feel constrained to follow my own sense of propriety." 
 
 Judge Holt had learned, through the statements of Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton to 
 Judge Bingham, that the recommendation to mercy had been presented to the President, 
 and had been considered by him and members of the Cabinet before the execution. But 
 when this information came to him, both Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton were dead, and 
 the statement of Judge Bingham of what they told him was secondary evidence; and 
 Judge Holt was anxious, therefore, to get the direct evidence of Mr. Speed that his 
 recommendation was, to his personal knowledge, before Mr. Johnson and his Cabinet, 
 and considered by them. His appeals to Mr. Speed are pathetic in the earnestness and 
 depth of feeling they reveal. What could be more profoundly sorrowful or touching 
 than this, in his letter of April 18, 1883 : " Allow me to add that we are now, each of us, 
 far advanced in years, so that whatever is to be done for my relief should be done quickly. 
 While, however, it is sadly apparent that I can remain here but a little while longer, 
 I have not been able to bring myself to the belief that you will suffer the closing hours 
 of my life to be darkened by a eonsciousness that this cloud, or even a shred of it, is 
 still hanging over me a cloud which can be dissipated at once and forever by a single 
 word spoken by yourself in defense of the truth and in rebuke of a calumny, the merci- 
 less cruelty of which none can better understand than yourself. I make this final appeal 
 to your honor as a man to do me the simple justice, which, under the same circum- 
 stances, I would render to you at once and joyfully." 
 
 But Mr. Speed would not speak finally saying, in his letter of October 25, 1883, 
 "After very mature and deliberate consideration, I have come to the conclusion that I 
 cannot say more than I have." Neither would he enter into consideration or discussion 
 of his determination not "to speak of what was said at Cabinet meetings." It seems 
 to me that Judge Holt was right and Mr. Speed was wrong in their relative positions 
 upon this question. In his letter of April 18, 1883, addressed to Mr. Speed, to which
 
 41 8 THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 I have referred, Judge Holt forcibly presents his view: "You were a member of his 
 (President Johnson's) Cabinet, and I have the strongest reasons for believing that this 
 atrocious accusation is known to you to have been false in its every intendment. It 
 originated with President Johnson, and for years was industriously circulated by his 
 unscrupulous abettors, though he did not dare make open proclamation of it until he 
 felt assured, through your letter of the 3Oth of March, 1873, that no damaging 
 disclosures were to be apprehended from yourself. . . . The question whether a 
 President of the United States, as a craven refuge from accountability for official action, 
 did seek to blacken the reputation of a subordinate officer holding a confidential inter- 
 view with him, is in no just sense a private question ; it is essentially a public one, which 
 concerns the whole country, and one of which the country may well expect to speak, 
 seeing that you were a member of that President's Cabinet, at the time of this disgrace- 
 ful transaction. Your unwillingness thus to speak of it in 1873, seemed to have arisen 
 from an exaggerated estimate of a rule which once prevailed with regard to the 
 inviolability of Cabinet councils and secrets. But whatever may have been, in the 
 remote past, the recognized force of this rule, the frequent and conspicuous disregard of 
 it during the last two decades, by statesmen of the highest probity and rank, leaves the 
 impression that the rule itself has lived its day and is now practically dead and 
 inoperative. Waiving, however, this view, it is clear to me that, were the rule accepted 
 as now binding in its utmost rigor, it could have no application to this case. I can not 
 be misled in supposing that the relations between the President and the Cabinet are 
 relations of honor, and that, therefore, they cannot be held to oblige any member of his 
 Cabinet to protect, by his concealment, and thus become a moral accomplice in it 
 any criminal or wrongful act into which the President may be drawn by a guilty 
 ambition, or by any other unworthy passion or purpose. In a word, the rule never has 
 been and never should be so construed as to become a shelter for perjury or crime. 
 
 " Your associates in the Cabinet, Messrs Seward and Stanton, condemning the 
 rule by which I have been so long victimized, declared the truth fully to Judge Bing- 
 ham, as he has so forcibly set forth in his letter to which you are referred." 
 
 But, as I have said, Mr. Speed would not speak. I can only account for it by the 
 life, circumstances, and education of the man. In the old slave States, in the ante- 
 bellum days, there existed many of the ideas, traditions, and rules of personal conduct of 
 the feudal times. Things touching personal honor, or trusted to it, or that partook of 
 the knightly and chivalrous, were esteemed above common right, common honesty, or 
 common sense. Restrained by these limitations of birth and tradition, and controlled 
 by his chivalrous idea of not revealing what he regarded as Cabinet secrets, Mr. Speed 
 would not speak, even to save a public officer from a great wrong, or his personal friend 
 from a calumny which he knew would walk beside him, shadowing and embittering a 
 life, noble and void of wrong, down to its close. In this I think the judgment of man- 
 kind will be that he erred. He knew that this charge of Andrew Johnson was a cruel 
 falsehood. Not only what he said, but what he refused to say, proves this. His letter 
 of March 30, 1873, states that he saw the record, with the recommendation attached to 
 it, in the President's office before the execution. Judge Holt did not, therefore, " with- 
 hold," as the President alleged. But, stronger than this, and conclusive, I believe, in 
 the mind of every honest and unprejudiced man, were Mr. Speed's utterances, less than 
 two years ago, at a meeting of the Loyal Legion at Cincinnati. Mr. Speed read a paper 
 at the meeting of this society, held there on the 4th of May, 1887, in which he 
 said :
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND JUDGE HOLT. 419 
 
 " Only the group of fiends who stilled the pulsations of Lincoln's great heart, paid 
 the penalty of the crime. A maudlin sentiment has sought to cast blame on the officials 
 who dealt out justice to these. One in particular is my distinguished friend, the then 
 Judge Advocate General of the army. Judge Holt performed his duty kindly and con- 
 siderately. In every particular he was just and fair. This I know; but Judge Holt 
 needs no vindication from me nor any one else. I only speak because I know reflec- 
 tions have been made, and because my position enabled me to know the facts, and 
 because I know the perfect purity and uprightness of his conduct." Could any words 
 say in stronger form, he knew that in this matter Judge Holt did his whole duty, and 
 that President's Johnson's charges were false? Could he have said, " In every par- 
 ticular he was just and fair, this I know," if he did not know and intended to say that 
 he knew Judge Holt did his whole duty and had presented this recommendation to 
 mercy to President Johnson? But what he refused to say is as strongly convincing to 
 my mind of the fact that the recommendation to mercy was, to his knowledge, duly 
 brought to the President's attention, and was read and considered by him and members 
 of his Cabinet, as anything he has affirmatively stated. 
 
 He was asked by Judge Holt to state whether this paper was or was not before 
 President Johnson and his Cabinet. He refused to answer " because he did not feel at 
 liberty to speak of what was said at Cabinet meetings." If nothing was said about 
 the recommendation, if no such paper ever came before the Cabinet, might he not have 
 so stated; might he not have said, "No such matter ever came before the Cabinet? " 
 This would not reveal any Cabinet secret, would come nowhere near the limitations he 
 had prescribed for himself " not to speak of what was said at Cabinet meetings.' 1 
 
 Is it not the inevitable logical conclusion that it was because of this knowledge 
 that this recommendation had been before, and had been discussed by, the President and 
 his Cabinet, and his determination " not to speak of what was said at Cabinet meet- 
 ings," that he would not speak? 
 
 But, finally, my friends, has not the faith of Judge Holt been realized?- Has not 
 time caused the truth to shine forth and his innocence to appear? In 1873, he said: 
 "An abiding faith, however, remains with me that the public will do these witnesses 
 justice, and myself, also; and that if truth has power to disarm the cloud of calumny 
 of its lightnings, that then, standing in their presence and under their shelter, I may 
 well feel that for the future this cloud can have no terrors for me." 
 
 Saith an old poet : 
 
 " . . . I have ever thought 
 Nature doth nothing so great for great men 
 As when she's pleased to make them lords of truth. 
 Integrity of life is fame's best friend, 
 Which nobly beyond death shall crown the end.'