Q. Will you state whether or not Dr. Samuel Mudd there mentioned any thing about two suspicious persons having been at his house on Saturday morning? I WITNESS. I had very little conversation service commenced, which usually begins with Dr. Mudd at church. He remarked about 10 o'clock. that he regarded the assassination of the President, to use his own expression, as a most damnable act. He overtook me on the road after church, and stated to me that two suspicious persons had been at his house; Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. that they came there on Saturday morning a object to Dr. Mudd giving his declarations, little while before daybreak; that one of what he said on Sunday morning at church. them had a broken leg, or a broken bone in Mr. EWING. It is like the evidence of his the leg, which he bandaged; that they got informing Dr. George Mudd of the presence while there something to eat; that they of those suspicious persons at his house, seemed laboring under some degree, or prob- which the Court refused to allow to be given ably quite a degree, of excitement-more ex-in evidence; and which, for the reasons that citement than probably should necessarily I then very fully stated, I then thought, and result from the injury received; that they still think, a most important item of testisaid they came from Bryantown, and were in- mony, and one most clearly admissible. quiring the way to Parson Wilmer's; that Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. while there one of them called for a razor, and have heretofore stated to the Court the shaved himself; I do not remember whether ground of the objection. It is this: that it he said shaved his whiskers or moustache, is the declaration of the prisoner himself, at but altered somewhat, or probably materially a time and place about which the prosecualtered, his features; he did not say which it tion has given no evidence at all; to-wit, his was that had shaved himself; that he him- declarations on Sunday at church. self, in company with the younger one, or Mr. EWING. But it is during the alleged the smaller one of the two, went down the commission of the crime of concealment, and road toward Bryantown, in search of a vehicle it is evidence of his having broken that sito take them away from his house; that he lence, for which they propose to convict him arranged or had fixed for them a crutch or of complicity in the crime. crutches (I do not remember which) for the Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. There broken-legged man; and that they went away is no allegation of time in the charge or specifrom his house, on horseback, in the direc-fication that is important. The matter of tion of Parson Wilmer's. I do not think he time becomes important by the evidence, and stated what time they went. I the evidence of the prosecution has not gone to any thing he said or did on Sunday. Mr. EWING. But the evidence of the prosecution has gone, with one witness, to the fact of his having, as late as Tuesday, concealed the fact of the presence of two suspicious persons at his house. When I was about leaving him, he turning into his house, I told him that I would state it to the military authorities, and see if any thing could be made of it. He told me that he would be glad if I would, or that he particularly wished me to do it; but he would much prefer if I could make the arrangement for him to be sent for, and he would give every information in his power relative to the mat- said. ter; that, if suspicions were warrantable, he Assistant Judge Advocate BURNETT. AS feared for his life on account of guerrillas to his misstating the factsthat were, or might be, in the neighborhood. This was about half-past 11 o'clock in the forenoon, and when I parted with him, I was within fifty yards of his house. As I left Dr. Samuel Mudd, I went toward Bryantown. I dined at his father's house that day, and on my way toward Bryantown I stopped to see a patient, and it was nightfall before I got to the village of Bryantown. What Dr. Samuel Mudd had told me I communicated to the military authorities at Bryantown next morning. BENJAMIN GARDINER. The Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. evidence has gone to Tuesday as to what he Mr. EWING. As to his concealing the fact and denying it. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. As to what he said; and all he said on Tuesday at that time and place of course is admissible; but that is not Sunday. The Commission sustained the objection. Recalled for the Defense.-June 9. The JUDGE ADVOCATE. This witness is here to prove the declarations made at church by the prisoner, Dr. Mudd, on the Sunday after the assassination. The statement is allowed for the reason stated with respect to the testimony of the previous witness. By MR. EWING. I had heard on Saturday evening of the assassination, but it was in such a way that I saw Dr. Samuel Mudd at church on the I did not believe it. As I got to church on Sunday after the assassination. I saw him Sunday morning, I saw the people collected in conversation with his neighbors before the together in the church-yard talking in appar Q. State what Dr. George Mudd told Dr. Samuel Mudd. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. I object to the question. ently earnest conversation. It turned out to met Dr. George Mudd just at the end of his be about the assassination of the President. kitchen. As I advanced toward the church, I happened to go where Dr. Samuel Mudd was. I walked up to where he was, and spoke to him, and he spoke to me. I asked him if it was a fact that the President had been assassinated. Mr. EWING. May it please the Court, one He then turned around to me from the crowd of those four officers who testified, contraand said, "Yes, such seems to be the fact; dicting the others, it is true, stated that Dr. and he added, "Sir, we ought to immediately Samuel Mudd, on that visit, denied that there raise a home guard, and to hunt up all sus- had been any persons at his house on Saturpicious persons passing through our section day morning. We have proved, in a roundof country and arrest them, and deliver them about sort of a way, owing to the objections up to the proper authorities; for there were that were made, (but still it is proved,) that two suspicious persons at my house yester- Dr. Samuel Mudd informed Dr. George Mudd, day morning" I paid no particular atten- on Sunday, that there were two suspicious tion to what he said about suspicious per- persons at his house on Saturday morning, sons, because since the war commenced we and requested him to communicate the fact have always had in our neighborhood de- to the military authorities, and have him sent serted soldiers constantly, and detectives and for, if necessary, to give further information on soldiers of the United States, and we could hardly tell who they were. Whether Dr. Mudd said any thing further about the assassination or not, I can not tell. Everybody was talking about it until church commenced, and I can not tell whether he said any thing more, or if what I heard was said by others. DANIEL E. MONROE. For the Defense-June 10. On Sunday, the 16th of April, I heard at Bryantown, from Mr. William Henry Moore, that the man who had assassinated the President was Edwin Booth. Mr. Moore had come from Bryantown that morning. It was about 10 o'clock in the morning that I heard this. Mr. Philip A. Lasser and Mr. Warren were present when Mr. Moore told me. I think he said he heard it from the soldiers. It was some time afterward that I heard the assassins had been traced near Bryantown. the subject. One, or perhaps more, of those persons who went with Lieutenant Lovett spoke of the fact of Dr. George Mudd having a short conversation with Dr. Samuel Mudd outside the door, before Dr. Samuel Mudd saw the officer and the detectives. I wish to prove by this witness that Dr. George Mudd's whole conversation with Dr. Samuel Mudd was, that, in pursuance of the information which Dr. Samuel Mudd had given him on Sunday, and of his request, he had communicated the facts that Dr. Samuel Mudd stated to him to this officer and the detec tives, and that they had come for the purpose of questioning him upon the subject. The purpose of this evidence is twofold: first, to show that Dr. Samuel Mudd knew that these parties had been acquainted by Dr. George Mudd with the circumstance of those two suspicious persons having been at Dr. Samuel Mudd's house on Saturday morning, for the purpose of showing that he could not, after that, as a rational man, have gone into the I know Daniel J. Thomas by reputation. room and denied that there were two persons The neighbors generally think he is very un-in his house on Saturday morning; second, truthful. This is not the opinion of one to show that the conversation was not one party, but of the community generally. From that was in any manner objectionable, but, that reputation I could not believe him under on the contrary, in strict pursuance of the oath. request of Dr. Samuel Mudd, and that that I approved of the efforts of the Federal was all there was of it. It is true, it is a Government in its suppression of the rebel-conversation of Dr. George Mudd with the lion under the Constitution as it formerly accused. I do not wish to prove any thing stood. I did not approve of the manner in the accused said; I wish to prove merely which slavery was abolished. In the last what Dr. George Mudd stated to him, to Presidential election I used my influence in favor of Lincoln and Johnson. JOHN F. DAvis. Recalled for the Defense.-June 6. show the information he had as to the purpose of this visit, and as to the knowledge of the visitors with reference to those persons, before he entered the room to have his conversation with them. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. The witness is asked to state what a third person told the prisoner at the bar, and that I object to as utterly incompetent. I was at Dr. Samuel Mudd's house on the Tuesday following the assassination of the President. I went into the field and informed him that Lieutenant Lovett and a party of The Commission sustained the objection. soldiers were at his house, and had come to WITNESS. Dr. Samuel Mudd did not betray see him. When I came up to the house I the least unwillingness to go to the house to met Dr. George Mudd. Dr. Samuel Mudd see the officer, or manifest any alarm. JOHN F. HARDY. For the Defense.-May 29. By MR. EWING. REV. CHARLES H. STONESTREET. Recalled for the Defense.-June 10. In the year 1850, I was the President of I live in Charles County, about two miles Frederick College, in Frederick City, Maryand a half from Bryantown. I was with Dr. land, and the accused, Samuel A. Mudd, Samuel Mudd on Friday, a week after the was a pupil there. I have recently seen the assassination of the President; we dined to- book, kept by myself, in which his name is gether at his father's. While there a mes- entered. At the close of 1850, in December, senger came for Dr. Samuel Mudd to go I think, I was transferred to Georgetown to his house. I went with him, and met there Lieutenant Lovett in Dr. Mudd's yard. Dr. Mudd introduced Lieutenant Lovett to College, and I am under the impression that he was there when I left. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate At Frederick College we had one princime. When we got into the house, Dr. Mudd pal vacation, commencing in July and contold the Lieutenant that there was a boot tinuing during August; other vacations were there, and asked him if he wanted it. Lieu- only for a few days, during which those tenant Lovett said he did. No inquiry had pupils that resided at a distance of a hunbeen addressed to him about the boot, or dred miles or so from College did not go any thing said in my hearing about it before home. that. Dr. Mudd's wife said that she had found the boot under the bed, in dusting up the room a day or two after the men left. By ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE Burnett. There was no word said about searching the house before Dr. Mudd spoke of the boot. When we got to the house, I counted twenty-eight horses belonging to the soldiers. I do not know what had occurred in the the President. house before we got there. I think it was Mr. Davis who sent for Dr. Mudd while at his father's. By MR. EWING. Dr. Mudd himself gave the boot to the officer. I do not think Dr. Mudd had any conversation with anybody before the fact of the boot being there was mentioned to the officer. JANE HEROLD Recalled for the Defense.-June 9. By MR. EWING. I live on Eighth Street, east, in this city, not a hundred yards from the Navy Yard gate, and about a quarter of a mile from the Navy Yard bridge. I have lived there eighteen years. It is not on the direct route from the city to the bridge, but it is on one that is very much used. I am not acquainted with the prisoner, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd; I never heard him spoken of in our house, nor by my brother. MRS. MARY E. NELSON. David E. Herold, one of the accused, is my brother. I never heard him speak of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, and never heard the name mentioned in the family until his arrest. There were no holidays in the fall, and only a few days recess at Christmas. I can not say certainly that Dr. Mudd was there in December. It was the rule not to go away during the temporary vacation, and pupils could not go without the authority of L. A. GOBRIGHT. For the Defense.-June 10. By MR. EWING. I am telegraphic correspondent of the Associated Press. I was at Ford's Theater on the night of the 14th of April, after the assassination of the President, and heard some persons say positively that it was J. Wilkes Booth who was the assassin, while others said they knew J. Wilkes Booth, and that the man who jumped upon the stage and made his exit differed somewhat in appearance from Booth. So far as I could ascertain, there did not seem to be any certainty at that time, and I was not thoroughly satisfied in my own mind that night as to who was the assassin. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate I was not perfectly satisfied that night that it was J. Wilkes Booth who had killed the President. It was telegraphed over the country that he was the assassin, but not by me; I could tell by whom, if necessary. After I saw the official bulletin the next morning, I came to the conclusion that J. Wilkes Booth was the man. JAMES JUDSON JARBOE. I live in Prince George's County. I am usually called Judson Jarboe. I and my brother, William Jarboe, are the only adults A. O, no, sir; I could not expect that. of that name in Prince George's County. I Q. Did you want it, whether you expected do not know and never saw Dr. Samuel it or not? Did you want this rebellion-this Mudd before his arrest. I saw Mrs. Surratt Southern Confederacy, if you please to trisome time in April, since her arrest; I had umph? not seen her before that for two or three Mr. EWING. I will state to the witness years. I have never been at her house on that he has the privilege of declining to anH Street, nor have I ever met her daughter swer. I do not care about interfering further at any house in Washington. than that. What I called him to, was one single question of fact. I have known Mr. Evans for several years; he used to live in my neighborhood, and attend a Methodist Church there; I used to see him passing. I have not seen him for a year or two, certainly, till two or three weeks before my arrest. I was standing at the corner of Ninth and G Streets, when Mr. Evans passed by me, walking. I had not seen him before, I think, for a year or two. Cross-examined by ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE BINGHAM. I know John H. Surratt, but have not met him very often. I met him on Seventh Street, in this city, I believe, some time in March last. It was at the restaurant nearly opposite Odd Fellows Hall. There were several gentlemen with Surratt. I just spoke to him, passed the time of day, and passed on. I do not know the persons who were with him. I do not know John Wilkes Booth. I have seen David E. Herold; I recognize him among the prisoners. He was not with Surratt when I saw him at the restaurant. I have not, to my knowledge, met Surratt since. Before that I passed Surratt on the road some time last fall; he was riding alone. I I was arrested on the 15th of April. do not know that I have been charged with any disloyal conduct down in Maryland, nor do I know for what I was arrested. On the night I was arrested, I was asked some questions by Major Wooster, at Fort Baker, I think. He asked me about a man by the name of Boyle, and if I had not harbored him. I told him I had not. Boyle, he said, was charged with assassination and horsestealing. I think he said Boyle had killed a Captain Watkins. I knew Boyle when he was a boy, but I have not seen him for four years. I know he was not harbored on my premises. Q. How have you stood yourself in relation to this rebellion since it broke out? A. I do not exactly understand you. Q. Have you made any declarations against the Government of your country since this rebellion broke out? Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. I have already stated to the witness that if he thinks his answer to any question will criminate him, he can say so, and decline to answer. The JUDGE ADVOCATE. I do not think a mere wish is such criminality as should be protected from exposure. Mr. EWING. I think this a species of inquisition, which counsel ought not to indulge in. The JUDGE ADVOCATE. Loyalty is a question of feeling and conviction, as well as of action. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. If the witness thinks it will criminate him to make a full and complete answer, he can say so. If he does not think it will criminate him, he must answer the question. WITNESS. I hardly know what would criminate me here. Q. I should like to know whether it is your opinion that the Southern Confederation was criminal or not? A. I do not know much about it. Q. Have you not expressed yourself that it was all right? A. What was all right? Q. The Southern Confederacy and the rebellion? A. I do not think that I did. Q. State whether you made an assault upon a man at the election about four years ago, and what you did to him. A. Are you going to try me for that? A. I have been tried for that same offense twice. Q State whether you made an attack, about four years ago, at the time of the election, on a Únion man down there, and killed him. A. There was a pretty smart attack made upon me. Q. What became of the man? A. It would be very hard for me to tell now. Q. Was he killed or not at the time? Q. Do you not know who did it? A. No, I do not know exactly who did it. Q. Do you know whether you had a hand in killing him? A. I do not know. I have answered all the questions so often that Q. You can answer that question or let questions, and snapping him up when he it alone. If you say you can not answer started to answer, and undertaking to present it without criminating yourself, you need to the Court the impression from his answers not. A. I have answered that several times. Q. You have not answered me yet. A. I have answered these questions before other courts; I have been asked these questions over and over. Q Did you kill him, or did somebody else kill him? A. I can not tell you whether some one else did it. Q Did you have a hand in it? Q. Where was it that this man was killed? A. I understood that he was killed at the election. Q. Do you not know the man was killed? Were you not there? that he was a felon, and then not allowing the witness to state that he was tried for the offense alleged against him, in a high court of the country, and was acquitted. That is not fair. And, more than that, the gentleman is certainly wrong. He drew out of the witness, on cross-examination, the fact that he was tried. Now, I want to know where he was tried. I want to know whether there was a solemn inquiry into it; and whether he was tried in a high court. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. Whether I badgered the witness or the witness badgered me and justice both, is a question that will appear by the record. The point I make is, that I never asked this witness a question whether he was tried. Mr. EWING. You drew it out. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. I did not draw it out of him. What I tried to draw out of him was legitimate; but as the gentleman chooses to arraign me hereMr. EWING. I take that back. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. I am glad of it. Holding myself as the humblest man here, I beg leave to say, in vindication of my conduct, that there is not a law book on evidence fit to be brought into a court of justice, which does not say that I had the right to ask him whether he had been guilty of murder; and I am not going to let this witness go away from this court with the impression that I have invaded any right of his. I had a right to ask him whether he was guilty of murder, and he had a right, as I told him, to refuse to answer it if he saw fit. Now, what I say to the Court is, that he never answered my questions. Mr. EWING. You did not ask him whether he was guilty of murder. I Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. asked him whether he killed a man, and You whether he had any thing to do with it. WITNESS. I was acquitted. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. I object to all that. Mr. EWING. You have been going into the question whether he was tried or not, and I ask him the question in what court he was tried. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. The gentleman has made an issue with me. I deny his assertion. Mr. EWING. That is not necessarily murder. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. If I may ask whether he was guilty of murder, I may ask him whether he killed a man. Mr. EWING. You did not ask him whether he had committed murder. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. The greater includes the less. Mr. EWING. But you asked the less. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. What Mr. EWING. The witness can state in what I say is that the law authorized me to ask court he was tried. squarely whether he was guilty of murder, Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. He and he is not to go out of court with the can not state where. I did not ask him in impression that I have invaded any rights of what court he was tried. He chose not to his. I never asked him about any trials. answer my questions, and that was all. He did not answer my questions. He had a Mr. EWING. If the Court please, I think right not to answer them, but I never asked the character of the cross-examination of him about trials at all. He never stated this witness has been most extraordinary, whether he had killed the man; he did not catching the witness, badgering him with even state whether he had a hand in killing |