A. I was informed so; that it was the quickest route. In my first trip to Canada, through Troy to White Hall, and there took the steamer to Canada; coming back by way of St. Albans. Q. Did you go on straight there? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what time did you leave New York for Canada, when you went by way of Albany and Troy? A. I left that night about ten o'clock. Q. What time did you get to Albany? A. I do not know, as I passed through there in a sleeping car. Q. What time did you get to Montreal? A. I got to Montreal at ten o'clock on Saturday the 22d. Q. Can you tell about the time between Albany and Montreal? Q. Can you state the time between New York and Albany? A. I am not positive that I can. Q. You can come pretty near it? A. I should judge it to be about five hours. Q. From Albany to Montreal, then, is twenty-four hours less five? A. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY. Nineteen hours? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever travel west from Albany? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the time from Albany to Syracuse? Q. What is the time from Albany to Buffalo? A. That I do not know; I have never taken any minutes of my travels on those routes at all. JOHN T. FORD recalled and examined. By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. Were you in Carroll prison with Weichmann ? A. I was there, I think, thirty-nine days and a half. Q. Did you tell him that he was mistaken as to the time when Pescara was performed? (Question objected to by the district attorney. Objection sustained.) Q. Did he ask you what night Jane Shore was performed? (Question objected to by the district attorney as irrelevant and collateral, and on the ground that the witness, Weichmann, stated he did not remember. Objection sustained, and exception to the ruling noted.) Q. Did he state to you, while in Carroll prison, in the presence of two other persons, that the reason he had no clean clothes there, or was short of clean clothes, was that he had left his clothes at Mrs. Surratt's to go into the wash? (Question objected to by the district attorney on the ground that the witness, Weichmann, in response to the question said he did not remember. Mr. Merrick. (referring to Weichmann's testimony,) said that to this question the witness answered positively "No, sir." The COURT said then the question might be answered.) A. He stated that in substance. Q. This question was asked the witness Weichmann. “I ask you if you did not tell Jarboe and some one else in the Carroll prison that being taken before Mr. Stanton and interrogated as to what you knew, if you knew anything of the parties engaged in the plot to murder the President, you did not say you did not know anything?" The reply was, "No, sir; I do not remember that." Were you present in any such conversation? (Question objected to by the district attorney. Mr. Merrick said he supposed if Mr. Ford was the some one else the foundation had been sufficiently laid. Objection sustained.) Q. Was John M. Lloyd in Carroll prison with you? A. Yes, sir. Mr. MERRICK read from the cross-examination of the witness, Weichmann, "Didn't you tell Mr. Lloyd on your examination below that you had sworn to a whisper? A. I do not remember; I may have told him so; I believe that I did. Q. Do you remember what his reply was? A. No, sir." Mr. MERRICK said he proposed to prove by this witness what Mr. Lloyd said in reply. The COURT said he could not do that, Weichmann testified that he did not remember what Lloyd said. Q. Did Weichmann tell you that he had told the Secretary of War where John Surratt was at the time of the assassination? A. He did. Q. What did he say? (Question answered by witness.) Mr. PIERREPONT asked to have the answer just given stricken out, as it did not relate to anything Weichmann had testified to. The Court so directed. Q. I ask you if he did not tell you he knew where John Surratt was at the time the assassination took place? A. He told me that he told the Secretary of War. Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. What did he tell you he told the Secretary of War? A. To the best of my recollection he told me that John Surratt was in Canada, Montreal, and that he had seen a letter from John Surratt received the day of the assassination, dated the 12th, I believe. By the DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Q. How long has it been since these conversations occurred to which you have testified? A. I think they occurred the first week in May, 1865, to the best of my recollection. Q. Did you make any note of them at the time? A. I did make some memoranda of what occurred in prison at the time I was there. Q. Did you of conversations that took place? A. Not specially. Q. Then do you recollect of making notes of these conversations with Weichmann ? A. I cannot say I ever made a note of that special conversation. Q. Do you recollect stating what he said shortly afterwards? A. I have talked with the people connected with my establishment in regard to this whole conversation. Q. When did this conversation impress itself upon your mind? A. I was affected by his evidence at the military court. It rather startled me that he should contradict to such an extent his statements to me. JAMES L. MADDOX recalled and examined. By Mr. MERRICK: Q. Were you in Carroll prison with Mr. Weichmann. A. I was. Q. This man sitting here? (Pointing to Louis J. Weichmann.) A. Yes, that man sitting behind Judge Pierrepont. Q. Did you go up to the War Department with him to Mr. Bingham's office? A. I do not know whether it was Mr. Bingham's office, or in what department; it was in Winder's building. Q. Did any officer of the government at that time tell Weichmann that unless he testified to more than he had already testified that they would hang him? (Question objected to by the district attorney. The court had already ruled on the same question.) The COURT asked whether the object was to put this in as a substantive fact, or to contradict Mr. Weichmann. Mr. MERRICK replied as a substantive fact first. The COURT said counsel must confine it to this trial. Mr. MERRICK said he did not know whether any trial was designated. The COURT replied that the witness could be asked as to that. Q. Was there any particular trial referred to at that time? A. I think there was. By the COURT: Q. When was that conversation? By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. Was it before the military commission? A. It was while the trial was going on. Q. Before he had been examined as a witness? A. I think it was after he had been examined. Q. After he had been examined by the military commission? A. I think so; I will not be positive. Mr. MERRICK said then he put the question and he understood the court to rule it out. The COURT said he did unless it was proved that Weichmann on this occasion referred to the trial of John H. Surratt. The question was excluded when asked of Weichmann, and counsel must expect the same rule to be applied to this wit ness. By Mr. MERRICK: Q. Did Weichmann ever say to you that an officer of the government had stated to him that unless he testified more they would hang him? (Question excluded as irrelevant. It could not be proved as a substantive fact upon this trial.) Q. I ask you whether Mr. Weichmann said to you that he was told by Mr. Bingham that if he did not state, more fully than he had done, all he knew, he would be treated as one of the conspirators-not these precise words, but the Eubstance? The COURT asked whether that related to this trial. Mr. MERRICK said he understood that objection to it was withdrawn, and he offered it as a substantive fact. The COURT said the question was inadmissible. A witness could not be contradicted, except in reference to a fact which could be given in testimony as tending to prove or disprove the offence alleged. Mr. MERRICK stated that he had no other witness present in court. One other witness was expected to-day, and he had learned, by telegram, that he would be here to-morrow. The defence would be able to close their case to-morrow, and would have done so to-day, if their witnesses had been present. The court thereupon took a recess until to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m. THURSDAY, July 18, 1867. The court was opened at 10 o'clock. Rev. L. RocCOFORT Sworn and examined. By Mr. MERRICK: Q. State if you know Louis J. Weichmann. Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him? A. Yes, sir. Q. Outside of the "confessional?" A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he ever tell you that he was employed in an office in the War Department, and engaged to send information to the southern confederacy? The district attorney objecting, Mr. Merrick read from page 321 of Weichmann's testimony, to show that he said he had never given to Mr. Roccofort an y such information as it was now sought to show he had given. The DISTRICT ATTORNEY said it was a cardinal rule, with which all were familiar, that a witness could not be asked a collateral question with a view of afterwards contradicting him. The question which was asked in this instance being a collateral one, the counsel were bound by the answer. The charge in the indictment was a charge of a conspiracy to murder; in pursuance of which conspiracy the parties therein named did kill and murder the deceased. Could the fact, if it be a fact, that this witness took advantage of his official position to furnish information to the South, tend to throw any light upon the issue then before the jury, as to whether there was such conspiracy, and whether the object of that conspiracy was carried out? If what was proposed to be proved was evidence for any purpose, it was to cast a cloud of suspicion upon the witness, in other words, to show that he was an accomplice. It did not tend to show that it was such. But even if it did, it would not be contended that the testimony of an accomplice was not to be received, and was not entitled to the same weight as that of any other witness when he was corroborated by others. He submitted that whatever was the object, whether to show that this witness was an accomplice or a co-conspirator, it must be done by witnesses who could prove facts tending to show his connection with it, but not in the indirect way proposed by asking him certain questions calculated or intended to cast a cloud of suspicion upon his testimony, and then inquiring of another witness as to whether he had not made a statement inconsistent with that to which he testified. Mr. MERRICK said that there were two grounds upon which they offered this proof. In the first place, they charged that if there was any conspiracy at all, Weichmann was in that conspiracy. That his testimony was the testimony of an accomplice, seeking to save his own life by the betrayal of his associates. The testimony as given went far to establish that fact. If he was an accomplice, it became a substantive fact which they had a right to prove, and they had the right to prove it for the reason that the law said that the testimony of an accomplice was to be taken with great caution by a jury. The English rule was that the party could not be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice alone. That such was his character, and such were the inducements held out to him to falsify, that the temptation was too strong to entitle his testimony to the same weight that would be given to that of a man who was not in a position to be influenced by those temptations. A conviction could not be had on the testimony of an accomplice alone. If a conviction was had, the court would set the verdict aside. The testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated by other evidence. The DISTRICT ATTORNEY said he never had asked and never would ask the conviction of a party upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, but the point he submitted was that, if the defence charged Weichmann with being an accomplice, they must prove it by witnesses who could testify to facts within their own personal knowledge tending to show it, and not by asking the witness a collateral question, and then introducing other witnesses to contradict him. He did not wish to be understood, however, as admitting that Mr. Weichmann was an accomplice or a co-conspirator, or that he had done anything inconsistent with the character of a faithful public officer. He had argued the question upon the theory of the defence, simply assuming that position for the sake of the argu ment. Mr. MERRICK held that if the act of the accomplice was a substantive fact which he had a right to prove, he had a right to inquire of the witness regarding it and then to contradict his statement by the testimony of other witnesses. He' was only prevented from contradicting the statement of a witness on the stand when he inquired of him with regard to a matter which was not a substantive fact, but entirely collateral, and which could have no influence in determining the issue before the jury. If, then, the fact that he was an accomplice was a substantive fact, which might influence the decision of the jury upon the issue before them, they had the right to ask him, first, whether he was so or not, and if he replied in the negative, to prove he was by other witnesses; or they had the right to ask him whether he had done certain acts, the doing of which acts would be facts from which it might be inferred that he was an accomplice. He proposed to prove by this witness that Weichmann stated that his business in the War Department was to hold the office he then occupied under the federal government for the purpose of aiding the rebel government at Richmond; and that in his office he received information in an official capacity as an officer of the United States, which he did communicate to the confederate government at Richmond. Was not that fact a fact from which it might be inferred that he was an accomplice ? The COURT said it was if he should prove that the confederate government was the principal in the murder of Mr. Lincoln. Mr. MERRICK replied that the court had admitted testimony showing the sympathies of the parties with the one government or the other, and why? Did the court admit it because the confederate government was the principal in the murder of the President? He was free to confess that he did not at the time understand the ruling of the court, but he was acting in this case in accordance with the rules as laid down by his honor, and not according to his own views. By the ruling of the court they had the right to show the feelings and sympathies of this witness as between the rebel government and the government of the United States. He therefore submitted that in their judgment this testimony was admissible under the ruling of the court upon two grounds: First, as a fact which might tend with other facts to show that he was an accomplice; and, secondly, as a fact showing his sympathies, as the court had allowed the sympathies of other witnesses to be shown. The COURT said the rule of law in regard to allowing questions to be put to a witness on cross-examination with a view of showing his sympathy, disposition, and temper in the case, was one thing; but a proposition to show such by other and independent witnesses as a substantive fact was another and quite a different thing. It was a well-settled and familiar rule of law that the witness might be cross-examined (and the ruling was first made for the defence in this case) with a view of ascertaining the temper and disposition of the witness. When counsel, however, came to examine another witness in order to contradict what had been said by a former one on his cross-examination, they were confined in the examination of that witness to those matters which were relevant and pertinent to the issue. He did not see how proof as to whether Weichmann was in this office for the purpose of assisting the confederate government could tend to throw any light upon the issue in the cause. Suppose it were proved by a host |