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 November, when he communicated with

Davis, and said, speaking of the President's assassination, "he did not

think anything dishonorable that would serve their cause." 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 extradition 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 capture 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 Confederates declared that the tyrant never should serve another

term. He heard the assassination discussed at a meeting of these rebel

agents in Montreal in February last. "Sanders 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 meeting 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 Southerners

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 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 discredit 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 statement 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 10th 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 Montreal 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 witness 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 presence 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 transactions in Canada, as well as by the fact that they are

wholly uncontradicted in any material 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 language

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 specification 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 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 province.

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 Richmond,

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 general

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 conspiracy. 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 department 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 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.

"_His Excellency President Davis_:--

"President Lincoln was assassinated in the theatre in

Washington on the night of the 14th 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

_better_ 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_."

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 concealing, by any form of words, any great

crime which he may have meditated or perpetrated 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 mortally 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 assassination of the

President, the Vice-President, of the Secretary of State, and the

Secretary 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 disappointment that the war minister of the republic, whose

energy, incorruptible integrity, sleepless vigilance, and executive

ability had organized day by day, month by month, 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 government, 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 pretended 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 November, 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, Pallen, 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 9th 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

compelled 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 men published, in the report of the proceedings before

Judge Smith, an affidavit purporting 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 testimony, but was a practicing

lawyer in Montreal! This infamous proceeding, coupled with the evidence

before detailed, stamps these ruffian plotters with the guilt of 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 11th 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 General

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 11th of November leaving New York.

The register of the National Hotel shows that Booth left Washington

on the early morning train, November 11, and that he returned to this

city on the 14th. Chester testifies positively to Booth's presence in

New York early in November. This testimony shows most conclusively

that Booth was in New York on the 11th 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 presence 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 transmitted 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--_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.... 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, _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 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 argument 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 gentleman

assumes that the letter of General Dix, of the 17th of November

last, transmitting 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 18th of

November.

Now the fact is, the 11th 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 13th,

and if in the evening, would bring him to Washington on Monday, the

14th 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 conversation 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 judgment 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 preliminary 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

_now_, 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 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 gentleman, 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 fortnight. It by no means 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 killing 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 immediately 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 himself

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 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 volunteered 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 connected 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 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 testified 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 December 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 Congress 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 recognize 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 12th 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, 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 registered 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 conspiracy, 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 interviews 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 a while" 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 Pennsylvania 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 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

separated 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 Wiechmann 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 15th

of January, 1865; because she swears she came to his house on the first

Monday after Christmas last, which was the 26th day of December; so

that the 15th 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 registered falsely; either of which facts might have

happened without the knowledge of the 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 10th 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 9th 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-conspirator 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.

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

testimony, 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 and by day

was the only shelter that the prisoner dare 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 23d 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 10th of April, four days before the murder of the

President. Of his conduct after the assassination 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 10th 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 18th 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 20th 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,

Washington, D.C.," was also in the "oil speculation." In that letter he

says:--

"FRIEND WILKES:--I received yours of March 12th, and

reply as soon as practicable. 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 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 9th. 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 government 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 surveillance 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 business 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, 13th 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 telegraphic 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 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. Vantyne's. These parties

to this conspiracy, after they had gone to Baltimore, had additional

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

established, 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 possession 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 existing 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 enterprise 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 _propitious_ 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 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 previously 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 Richmond

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 immediately

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 3d 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 14th 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 specification, 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

13th of April--by the 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 14th; 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 extraordinary

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 mistaken. O'Laughlin and his drunken

companions (one of whom swears that he drank ten times that evening)

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 from 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. O'Laughlin

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 whereabouts on that evening. To establish an _alibi_ the

witnesses _must know the fact_ and _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 and place_. The testimony of James B. Henderson is equally

unsatisfactory. He is contradicted 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 witnesses 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 13th 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.--_1 Wharton, 706._

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, believe that any one

of these conspirators 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 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, suggesting 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 abandoned 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 common 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 testimony 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 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, according 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 12th of April last he saw Atzerodt

at the Kirkwood House; that Atzerodt there asked him, a stranger, if he

knew where Vice-President 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 Johnson was

dining alone. Robert R. Jones, the clerk at the Kirkwood House, states

that on the 14th, 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 carrying 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 undertaken 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, did he enter into this conspiracy?

His language overheard by Mr. Norton excludes 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 conclusive 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, occupying 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

testimony no candid man will discredit, that about the 20th of March,

Mrs. Surratt, in great excitement and weeping, said that her son John

had gone away not to return, when, about three hours subsequently, 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 private 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

demonstrating 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 interviews 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 conspiracy 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 immediately went to Canada, delivered despatches in cipher to

Jacob Thompson from Jefferson 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."

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, finding 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 14th 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 Montreal, as the testimony shows, on the 18th of April, four days

after the murder? Nothing 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 11th 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 11th 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 consummation of this infernal plot. On that day, the

11th of April, John H. Surratt had not returned from Canada with the

funds furnished by Thompson!

Upon that journey of the 11th the accused, Mary E. Surratt, met the

witness John M. Lloyd at Uniontown. She called him; he 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 assassination she again sent for Booth, had an interview with him

in her own house, and 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 conversation which Booth held with her in her

parlor on the afternoon of the 14th 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 conspiracy 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 apprehension 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

11th 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 14th of April

by the testimony of Mrs. Offut, who swears that upon the evening of

the 14th of April she saw the prisoner, 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 in diameter? The attempt

was made by calling Mrs. Offut to prove that no such package 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 her 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 successive 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.

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 contrary, 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 14th 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

undertook 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 Spangler replied, "Oh,

yes."