It was neither fair nor honest in them, after dragging into the trial the question of Mrs. Surratt's guilt or innocence, and that for the purpose we have above indicated, to endeavor, in the face of the facts, to shift the burden of the responsibility for this on to the prosecution. It was equally dishonest to insinuate that the prosecution of John H. Surratt was not entered upon alone for the purpose of ascertaining his guilt or innocence, but in order that the false stories that had been published in regard to the course of the government in executing Mrs. Surratt might be set at rest. The most eloquent counsel for the defence, ably assisted by his colleagues, endeavored to put the government, and not the prisoner, on trial before the jury, and before the country. They uniformly and boldly asserted his innocence, whilst they arraigned the government for having murdered, according to one, and butchered according to another, an innocent woman; and also of being in this trial engaged in an endeavor to cover up the guilt of shedding her innocent blood, by shedding the blood of her innocent son. To cap the climax of their audacity Mr. Bradley, after reiterating the charges made by Mr. Merrick and Joseph H. Bradley, Jr., asked the jury, in making up their verdict, to make a written statement at the same time of their belief that Mrs. Surratt had been unjustly condemned, and found guilty upon insufficient evidence. They charged the government with dishonesty in withholding Booth's diary from the commission; claiming that it would have proven Mrs. Surratt's innocence. They could not have failed to know, as able lawyers, that this diary was of no account whatever as evidence. It was no more admissible than was Atzerodt's confession, as every entry that was made in it was made with the almost certainty of his capture in view, and for the purpose of concealing the greatness of the conspiracy and its personnel. It was of no more value than was his declaration in favor of his fellow-conspirator, Herold, that he was an innocent man, made a few moments before he was shot. In his argument on the defense of an _alibi_ set up by the prisoner, Mr. Merrick makes great account of the evidence of the detectives who visited and searched Mrs. Surratt's house at two o'clock on the morning of the 15th of April, that Mrs. Surratt declared that John was not there, and that she had not seen him for two weeks. She claimed that he was in Montreal, and that she had received a letter from him on the day previous. They well knew that her declarations had no value as testimony, and that there was evidence flatly contradicting her statements.