Untitled article | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, August 27, 1867

The Trial of Surratt.

The Surratt trial is closed, the jury have been unable to agree upon a verdict. It has been one of the most remarkable criminal trials of this country or age; remarkable alike in the magnitude of the crime and the dramatic development of the very singular testimony.

It is impossible to lay before our readers all the details of the testimony which form the very singular chain of evidence against Surratt so ably developed by Mr. Pierpont. His connection with the other conspirators was clearly proved; that he was in Washington at the time of the murder, as charged in the indictment, appears to have been doubted by the majority of the jury, and hence the disagreement. That Surratt’s part in the conspiracy was as important as that of the other murderers is made equally clear. It was shown, by statements carelessly made by Surratt long before the assassination as well as afterward, that the abduction or murder of Lincoln occupied his thoughts. It is true that Booth intimates in his diary that the idea of murder had not been entertained before the 14th of April. But facts are more significant than the statement of a flying murderer, who would naturally desire to make it appear that his act was the result of sudden impulse rather than of a premeditated plan. It is clear that Harold was brought into the conspiracy because he was clerk in a drug-store, and in connection with an attempt to poison the President. That such an attempt was made and failed is shown by the following words found inscribed in Booth’s handwriting on a window-pane in the M’Henry House, in Meadville, Pennsylvania: “Abe Lincoln departed this life August 13, 1864, by the effects of poison.” The abduction scheme was plainly given up at an early period of the conspiracy. It is an unquestioned fact that Mrs. Surratt’s house in Washington was the principal rendezvous of the conspirators. This woman also owned a tavern at Surrattville. In 1862 the husband died, leaving his family in poor circumstances, and in 1864 the removal to Washington took place. Some time before the assassination Harold deposited some carbines in the house at Surrattville, then kept by a Mr. Lloyd. Afterward John H. Surratt came to the house and concealed these weapons. And on the day of the assassination Mrs. Surratt undertook a special journey to inform Lloyd that these weapons would be called for that night. It was proved moreover, that Surratt was in Washington on the 14th of April. He was seen by Cleaver fitting the bar behind the door of the President’s box. Cleaver knew Surratt, and, though a reluctant witness, testified that he certainly saw him. Others who knew Surratt saw him on that day in Washington, and some of them talked with him. A servant of the family testifies that she saw him at home on that day. Sergeant Dye saw him from the steps in front of Ford’s Theatre just before the murder, calling out the time for Booth. Surratt’s face made so vivid an impression upon his mind that it appeared to him afterward in his dreams. In the evidence, as presented, his route to Washington was clearly traced from Elmira by the testimony of several witnesses. Immediately after the murder, Surratt flies. His name is registered in Montreal on the 15th of April, but he did not venture to stop there. Then we find him concealed with Boucher, a Romish priest, while his mother and fellow conspirators were on trial in Washington. Here he remains until September, when he again resumes his flight. He embarks upon a steamer under an assumed name. After relieving his natural anxiety by finding that there is no American detective on board, he grows bolder and tells his secret. He lands at length in Ireland, and is thence traced to Liverpool. Then he flies to Rome and enlists in the Papal Zouaves under the name of Watson. But even Papal Rome will not shelter him, and his flight is continued to Malta, and thence to Egypt, where he is captured and brought back to the city of his crime.

The testimony for the defense was not so voluminous nor so positive; the lawyers of the prisoner appear to have based all their hopes on proving an alibi, and little of their evidence went to clear the prisoner of the alleged connection with the conspiracy.

A new trial will doubtless follow at the next term of the court; which will doubtless result as all new trials do—in nothing.—Harper’s Weekly.