A. It is bad. Q. Would you believe him on his oath? Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. Do you think he could tell the truth? A. He might, if it would be of any benefit to him. Q. Otherwise he could not, could he? A. If he was to be a loser by it, I do not think he could. Q. Suppose he was not to lose or gain anything, would he then tell the truth? A. He might. Q. It would be accidental, wouldn't it? A. Yes, sir; very accidental, I think. EDWIN G. LEE sworn and examined. Q. State if you bore any commission in the army of the Confederate States; and if any, what? A. The last commission I held was that of brigadier general. Q. State where you were in the month of April, 1865. A. In the province of Canada. Q. Were you on duty there; or for what purpose were you there? A. I received a sick furlough for the period of six months, based upon a surgeon's certificate. Q. While you were in Canada did you meet the prisoner, John H. Surratt ? A. I did. I saw him first on the 6th day of April, 1865. Q. State whether he brought any despatch to you; and if so, from whom? (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont.) Mr. BRADLEY submitted to the court a written statement of what he proposed to prove by the witness, and desired to have the court rule upon such paper. Mr. PIERREPONT stated that there were several points in the paper to which he did not object, and others to which he did. He therefore thought the better plan would be for counsel to proceed to interrogate the witnesses on such points as he thought proper, and then, when a question was put which they deemed improper, they could make their objections, and the court could rule upon it. Everything would thus clearly appear upon the record. The COURT inquired of Mr. Bradley what he proposed to have done with the paper. Mr. BRADLEY said that he proposed to have it made part of the record of the case as a ground of exception. The COURT replied that that counsel might do, if he desired; but, inasmuch as the paper contained propositions which were not objected to, as well as many that were, it would be difficult for the court to rule upon it as a whole in the shape in which it was then presented. He thought the better way would be for counsel to put whatever questions he thought proper to the witness, and then, as objection was made, the court could proceed to rule upon them seriatim as they came up. Mr. BRADLEY said he had hoped to save time by pursuing the other mode, but he would, of course, acquiesce in the suggestion of the court in the matter. The examination of the witness was then resumed. By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. State whether Surratt brought any despatch to you; and if so, from whom? (Objected to by Mr. PIERREPONT.) The COURT said he ruled the question out, on the ground of its being res inter alios. (Exception reserved.) Q. On his arrival at Montreal, did he deliver to you any paper? (Same objection, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. Do you know whether or not, at that time, Mr. Jacob Thompson had any funds of the confederate government in Montreal? (Same objection, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. Do you know what disposition Mr. Jacob Thompson made of any of the funds of the confederate government in his custody in Montreal? (Same objection, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. Do you know whether the prisoner received any money, or not, through Jacob Thompson, at Montreal? (Same objection, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. While in Montreal, did you ever have opportunities to see the prisoner— from April 6 to April 12, 1865? A. I had opportunities of seeing him at his room at St. Lawrence Hall, the hotel where I boarded. Q. Between the 6th and 12th? A. Yes, sir, if he were there, because I did not see him on the 12th; that is, if I did, I do not remember it at all. Q. Did you employ him, while he was in Montreal, on any business calling him into the United States, on or before the 12th of April, 1865 ? (Same objection as heretofore had, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. Did you see him when he left Montreal to come to the United States, on the 12th of April, or whatever day he came away? A. I did not. Q. Do you know upon what business he came to the United States? (Same objection, with a like ruling. Q. Do you know whether he was to (Same objection, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) come to Elmira? Exception reserved) Q. Do you know whether he was to come to Elmira on any business to Occupy him there? (Same objection, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. Was he employed by you at Elmira for compensation to come into the United States to do any business for you? (Same objection, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. Were you aware of the fact that he had left Montreal to come to the United States? A. Of my own knowledge, no, sir. (After brief reflection.) Yes, I think I am, too; because the next time after I saw him Mr. PIERREPONT objected to the witness reasoning on the subject. They wanted the facts. WITNESS. I am not going to reason, except this far Mr. PIERREPONT said he must not reason at all. WITNESS. Then I cannot answer at all. The COURT. You must speak only of facts within your own personal knowledge. Q. Were you aware of the fact that he was about to leave Montreal to come to the United States? (Same objection as heretofore had, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. When you last saw him, did you leave him with the understanding that he was to come to the United States? (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont.) The COURT said the witness could not speak of the purposes of the prisoner. He must speak only of his acts. Mr. BRADLEY inquired whether he could not speak of the understanding with which they separated? Mr. PIERREPONT said he could not tell anything about an understanding. Mr. BRADLEY. Nor of an agreement between them? The COURT said he could not; that an agreement between them was no more than an agreement between two parties in this room made now. Q. Did you lose sight of him several days while you were in Montreal before the 17th or 18th of April? A. I did. Exception reserved.) Exception reserved.) Q. When you saw him again did he make any report to you? (Same objection as previously had, with a like ruling. Q. Did he have any sketch and exhibit it to you? (Same objection as heretofore had, with a like ruling. Q. Did he report to you the state of facts at Elmira? (Same objection, with a like ruling. Exception reserved.) Q. Do you know at or about what time you arrived in Montreal after you had left the scene some time? A. At the close of the interval of the several days that I mentioned just now he arrived in Montreal. I next saw him either on the 17th or the 18th of April. My own impression has been, ever since I have thought over the matter at all, that it must have been the 17th, though I am not positive. I am positive, however, that it was one of those two days. Q. Do you recollect at all how he was dressed when you first saw him in Montreal? (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont on the ground that they had given no evidence with regard to his dress in Montreal. Objection overruled.) A. I recollect nothing of his dress except that he wore a large ordinary travelling shawl that covered his shoulders and his body below his waist, and nearly to the skirt of his coat. If he threw that off at the moment I first saw him, I do not remember what his dress was. Q. Do you remember his costume when you last saw him in Montreal before he left you? A. I do not. Q. Do you remember whether he then had a moustache or a goatee? A. He had a very light moustache. It looked to me like one that had never been shaved off at all, but just allowed to grow. It was like a boy's moustache. The goatee was very light. When I say light I mean in quantity. I do not remember whether it included an imperial or not. I know that there was not an imperial alone; but whether the goatee grew to the lip or not I do not remember. Q. Do you remember whether he had a shawl when he went away? A I do not. No cross-examination. DAVID C. ROBINSON sworn and examined. By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. Where do you reside? A. In Elmira, New York. Q. Do you recollect being at Brainard's Hotel in 1865? A. I do. know who kept it in April, 1865? A. It had several different proprietors in the course of a month. There was one firm by the name of Granby & Walker, or Walker & Granby, who kept it through the largest part of April, 1865; I think as late as the latter part of the month. Q. After the 15th? A. Yes, sir; I think so. Q. Have you or not made very diligent search for the register of that hotel during that period? A. I have. Q. And have been unable to find it ? A. Yes, sir. No cross-examination. Mr. BRADLEY asked for an attachment for General Eckert, who had been subpoenaed as a witness, but had left with the express understanding that he would return on being telegraphed for. Also, for Mr. Tillotson, manager of the Western Union telegraph. The COURT thought it ought first to be shown that the parties in question had received the telegrams. He thought it would save time to send a special messenger for them. Mr. BRADLEY said he would have done so on Saturday, but was desirous to save the government the expense. He would now do so. AUGUST BACHUS sworn and examined: By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. Where do you reside? A. In the city of Washington. Q. Where were you living in April, 1865. A. At Winter Garden. Q. Where? A. Between Tenth and Eleventh streets, on Pennsylvania avenue. A. Yes, sir; a concert saloon. Q. Do you remember the day of the assassination of the President? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there any music and dancing in the room on that day and in the evening? A. There was. Q. During the daytime? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever have any music and dancing there on Friday in the day time? A. No, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. What sort of tables had you? A. Round tables. Q. Did people go there and drink in the daytime? A. Sometimes they did in the daytime. Q. Did they sit down at the round tables and drink? A. I do not know that they did that day. Mr. PIERREPONT. I do not speak of that day, but as to whether it was the habit of your place to have drinking there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have any woman or women dancing there? Q. You sometimes had a woman dancing there? A. Not in the daytime, except Mondays and Tuesdays. Q. On the 14th did you have women dancing there in the evening? A. Yes, sir. Q. You had persons drinking there around the tables! A. Yes, sir. By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. Did you at three o'clock in the afternoon, or at any time before sunset, have any music or dancing there that day? A. No, sir. Q. Your place was on the avenue! A. Yes, sir; it was on D street, between Tenth and Eleventh. Q. Any building between that and the avenue! A. No, sir. Q. You are cut off from the avenue by just such a triangle as that in front of Metropolitan Hall! A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there any other concert soon except this and Metropolitan Hall between Tenth and Twelfth streets! A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever see so many as twenty or fity people in there in the dayIme sitting art and the tables drinking ! A. Na st Q. Did you ever see as many as twenty people sitting round the tables in the daytime? A. Ña, sir; never. Maybe there might be five, six, & eight: not many more. A ddanez, beeren Neth and Ted ses Mr. Brian diend to the counsel, je de reassertion ring outside of the Twit of Tonth and Twilià streets, as that was the locality fred by their wit Mc. Procar real from page 124 of the test mogy of Vanderpoel on this 14. & berver Tend and Eieread, to Dereath and Twelfth slong them. I have my best them store to see. |