A. No, sir; not in the least. Q. Never have A. No, sir. Q. Have never expressed any hostility? A. No, sir. Q. And you had not when you heard him make these revelations of this perjury? A. No, sir; I wanted to shun his company-that is all. Q. And you did shun it? A. Yes, sir; I did. By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. You have been asked about hostile feelings; you may have feelings which would lead you to avoid a man without feeling any hostility to him? A. I suppose that is what I mean; I say I have no antipathy towards him, but I do not wish to hold any communication with him. JAMES J. GIFFORD sworn and examined. By Mr. MERRICK : Q. Do you know Mr. Weichman ? A. I have seen him. I have no acquaintance with him. A. Yes, sir. Q. This is the man here? (pointing to the witness, Louis J. Weichman.) A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he say in your presence that an officer of the government had told him that unless he testified to more than he had already stated they would hang him too? A. I heard the officer tell him so. Subsequently ordered to be stricken out by the court. Q. Who was present at that time? A. James Maddox. Subsequently ordered to be stricken out by the court. Q. Did Weichman ever say anything to you about wanting to go south? Mr. PIERREPONT objected, and, at the same time, asked that the answers to the first two questions be stricken out, as they did not relate to this trial, and were not contradictory of anything Weichman had said, as would appear from a reference to his testimony. The testimony of Weichman on this point was referred to and commented upon by the counsel, when The COURT said he thought the objection which had been made a proper one, and directed the answers already given to be stricken out. Mr. MERRICK reserved an exception. Q. At any time when you, Weichman, and Maddox were present in Carroll prison, after Mr. Bingham left there, did Weichman say anything amounting in substance to the fact that Bingham had threatened him, if he did not state more than he had already? The DISTRICT ATTORNEY objected, on the ground that the question being a collateral one, counsel was bound by the answer of the witness. The COURT said he had no recollection of having ruled the question to be a collateral one. Mr. MERRICK remarked that the court had made no such ruling. The objection was overruled, and the witness directed to answer. A. I never had any conversation at all with Mr. Weichman after that time. Q. Was Mr. Ford there in prison with you? A. Yes, sir; he was up there. JOHN MATTHEWS sworn and examined. By Mr. MERRICK: Q. State where you were in the month of April, 1865, and what you were doing. A. I was in the city, playing at Ford's theatre. Q. What is your profession? A. I am an actor. Q. State where you were on the afternoon of the 14th, and whether you met Booth on that evening. A. I did. Q. Where did you meet him? A. On Pennsylvania avenue, above Thirteenth street. Q. Opposite one of those triangular spaces? A. Just at one of those triangular enclosures. Q. Was he walking or on horseback? A. He was on horseback. Q. On what side of the street was he? A. The north side. Q. Did he ride up to the curbstone to speak to you? Q. Was he leaning over his horse's shoulder talking to you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had hold of your hand? A. Yes, sir. We crossed hands. He held the reins with the left hand, and took mine with the other. Q. Did his hands shake much? Did he appear to be at all nervous ? A. Yes, sir; I saw he was nervous and agitated. Q. Did he leave any impress of his nails on your hand? A. Yes, sir; he squeezed very warmly. Q. What kind of a hat had he on? A. A dark hat. Q. What is your height? A. About five feet seven. Q. State whether or not, at that time, Booth placed any paper in your hands? A. He did. Q. Was it a sealed paper? A. Yes, sir; sealed and stamped. Q. What did you do with it? A. Put it in my pocket. Q. When did you next see it? A. I saw it in my room immediately after the shot was fired—that is, a few minutes afterwards-when I succeeded in getting out of the building. Q. You were in the theatre at the time the shot was fired? A. I think in the handwriting of Booth. I have seen his name on photographs; and since that time I have seen a letter written by him. Q. What was on that paper, and whose names were signed to it? Mr. PIERREPONT. I object to that, and don't desire to discuss such a proposition Mr. BRADLEY said it was a serious matter, and asked the court to indulge the counsel until to-morrow morning. It was expected to show that the contents of the letter was an agreement between four conspirators, neither of whom is on trial here. He didn't know whether the matter had ever reached the ears of the Court. This witness had been examined before the Judiciary Committee, and that was how the defence found the matter out. The COURT said he had studiously avoided hearing and reading anything concerning this matter, premising that he might possibly have to try some case connected with the conspiracy. He did not think counsel had such a low estimate of him as to approach him with anything of the kind beforehand. Mr. BRADLEY stated that he did not think it would be wrong for the court to see or read the contents of the letter and form an opinion as to its admissibility; but he thought it was a grave matter, as showing who were the original conspirators, who had entered into an agreement and signed it together, and directly touching the innocence of the prisoner. Without further discussion, at 2.45 p. m. the court took a recess till to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. The court was opened at 10 o'clock. WEDNESDAY, July 17, 1867. After the calling of the list of jurors by the clerk had been concluded, Mr. BRADLEY, Sr., said, when the court adjourned yesterday a proposition was made to introduce an agreement between Booth and others in relation to the conspiracy. He admitted the paper would not be evidence for the prosecution, because it would show that Surratt was not in the conspiracy, but it was clearly admissi ble when offered by the defence. He held that it was pertinent to the issue, and when any evidence was offered it was for the court to determine whether the evidence offered is pertinent to the issue, and it is for the jury to determine the weight of the evidence. If the court can see that the jury may draw an inference from a fact offered, it must go to the jury. It is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether any positive rule of law governs the admissibility of testimony, and he had therefore hunted up no authorities. What is offered in evidence as a fact bearing upon the issue which this jury is now trying, and in the absence of any positive rule of exclusion it must go to the jury. If there is such a positive rule it is for the prosecution to show it. This is not a case where the prisoner might have manufactured the proof, but it is the declaration of the party, made at the very act, and it is as much a part of the res gesta as though it were written at the moment of the transaction. It is the concerted plan signed by the actors immediately preceding the action, and they go from the table and commit the acts which the prosecution have shown and proven. The prosecution have proven the execution of the act, and the defence now desires to prove the agreement to execute; and in view of the testimony already given none could suppose that the prisoner assisted in fabricating this proof. Two questions are involved in this trial-one whether he was a conspirator to murder the President, and the other whether he was an actor in the murder. These are totally distinct questions. The charge here attempts to fix the prisoner as engaging in the murder, and the conspiracy is to be shown as proof. Another question was, whether there was a conspiracy to kill, and that is the gist of the inquiry here. Who were the conspirators and what was the real object of the conspiracy is a question for inquiry. Ordinarily a conspiracy is a secret, and is to be proved by circumstantial evidence, for if it were made public, then the conspiracy would be exploded, The prosecution has attempted to show that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy? They say they trace the conspiracy from 1863 until its culmination, and they thought Surratt and others were engaged in a conspiracy. This was proven by Weichmann's testimony. If they have proven anything by this witness, it is that the conspiracy he (Weichmann) testifies to had terminated and failed in March, 1865. After that time they never brought the parties charged together by any one witness, and it is therefore a question for the jury whether there were two conspiracies and what became of that conspiracy in March. They have offered to prove that Surratt was here on April 14th, and we must meet that point. They offer evidence from which they infer that Surratt was in that conspiracy, and the defence meet that by offering the agreement of the conspirators and showing that Surratt was not a party to that agreement. The prosecution had produced Booth's diary to show that the murder was decided upon on April 14, and can the defence then be precluded from offering the agreement to murder, in which the name of the prisoner does not appear? It is not the confession of the party who had done the deed, but it is the agreement to do it, and the prisoner is excluded from the agreement, and he could, therefore, see no reason or could conceive no rule of law why the evidence should not be admitted. He (Mr. Bradley) admitted that elementary writers argued that circumstantial proof was better than positive proof, but no writer ever held that circumstantial evidence was better than positive written proof. Here was a contract that committed men to the gallows; a contract that would never have been entered into except by men who had lost their reason-madmen; a contract to commit a murder that has not its parallel. It was not kept in their possession and secreted by them, but handed to a third party, to be used as evidence against these four men who boldly offered themselves a sacrifice for what they deemed to be the nation's wrongs. In this contract the prisoner could not participate, and it is due not only to the prisoner but to others that have been murdered, that all the facts connected with the conspiracy should be brought out, and this paper cannot be excluded except upon the most inexorable rule of law. If it were the prisoner's own act it could not be offered in evidence, but it is the act of the conspirators, to the exclusion of the prisoner. The question of the admissibility of this evidence is for the court. The question whether Surratt was a party to the conspiracy is a question for the jury. How is he to prove that he was not a co-conspirator except by the agreement agreed when he was not there? The first conspiracy, which was to abduct, culminated on the 16th of March, and the prosecution had never brought the parties together again, and the effort now is to fix the prisoner with another conspiracy made on the 14th of April, and agreed upon in writing. To this inviting the prisoner was not a party, but it was in evidence that he was invited, after the failure of the first conspiracy, to come to Washington and enter into another. Here is that other conspiracy agreed upon, but to which Surratt is not a party, and he (Mr. Bradley) could see no rule that could exclude the evidence. Mr. CARRINGTON said he did not deem it necessary to say much against the admission of this testimony, for the subject was too plain. It was an attempt to offer a paper said to be a copy of one which had been written by one Booth, who was not a witness. It was not even an original paper, for the witness says he destroyed that. It was nothing but hearsay evidence, and the evidence of a third party, and he did not suppose the court would for a moment entertain it. In regard to the unjust imputation cast upon honorable men, that the conspirators tried at the arsenal had been murdered, he would answer that at the proper time and in the proper manner. All who were condemned by the military commission met a deserved murderer's death. The prosecution would show the country that Surratt was the armor-bearer of Booth, a man who was false to his country, false to his government, and who deserted his mother, and by flight had admitted his guilt. Mr. MERRICK, interrupting, asked Mr. Carrington what authority he was quot ing. He supposed this was a question of law. It was Mr. CARRINGTON said he understood these feeble attempts at wit. to create laughter, and the same spirit would create a mob if possible. In conclusion Mr. Carrington argued that the testimony should be excluded. Judge FISHER ruled that the testimony was inadmissible. It might have been the very object of conspirators to thus screen some of the parties to the conspiracy by getting up this agreement. Mr. MERRICK reserved an exception. JOHN MATTHEWS-cross-examination. By Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. Won't you tell the jury from what country you came to this? A. I never lived in any other country; I was born here. Q. Where? A. In Ohio. Q. And from Ohio where did you go ? A. I lived in Maryland until I was 16 years of age; and have lived in almost every other northern city. Q. What part of Maryland? A. Western Maryland. Q. What is the name of the town? Q. Your sympathies were neither for the Union nor against it? A. My sympathies were for the Union; I was sorry to see the country broken up. I had my own ideas as to what brought on the war. Q. Your ideas were not in favor of putting down the rebellion by war? A. No, sir; not by force of arms. I once thought it could be done by legislation, but I have now lost all hope with regard to legislation. Q. Were you ever educated for the ministry? A. No, sir. Q. Did you make any preparations toward it at all? A. No, sir; I am not good enough; others may think themselves good enough, but I have too much respect for the profession to think so. Q. You were good enough for the stage? A. No, sir; I do not flatter myself that I am good enough for the stage, for I have too high an opinion of that to think so. Q. Let us know how your memory is; is it good or bad? A. Very good; I have very often had great occasion to test it. I have had at times a wonderful amount of study to do. Q. Which do you think would be the better, your memory ten days after an event that occurred two years ago, or your memory now of such event? A. I think anything as impressive as all the circumstances connected with |