Assassination of Lincoln: a History of the Great Conspiracy: Trial of the Conspirators by a Military Commission, and a Review of the Trial of John H. SurrattHarris, T. M. (Thomas Mealey)
History
Assassination of Lincoln: a History of the Great Conspiracy: Trial of the Conspirators by a Military Commission, and a Review of the Trial of John H. Surratt
Harris, T. M. (Thomas Mealey)
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865 -- Assassination; Surratt, John H. (John Harrison), 1844-1916
And in further prosecution of said conspiracy the said Samuel
A. Mudd did at Washington City and within the military
department and military lines aforesaid, on or before the 6th
day of March, A.D. 1865, and on divers other days and times
between that day and the 20th day of April, A.D. 1865, advise,
encourage, receive, entertain, harbor and conceal, aid and
assist the said John Wilkes Booth, David E. Herold, Lewis
Payne, John H. Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, George A. Atzerodt,
Mary E. Surratt, and Samuel Arnold, and their confederates,
with knowledge of the murderous and traitorous conspiracy
aforesaid, and with the intent to aid, abet, and assist them
in the execution thereof and in escaping from justice after
the murder of the said Abraham Lincoln, in pursuance of said
conspiracy in manner aforesaid. By order of the President of
the United States.
J. HOLT, _Judge Advocate General_
_Charge and Specifications Indorsed._
"Copy of the within charge and specification delivered to David E.
Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Edward Spangler, Michael
O'Laughlin, Samuel Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd, on the
8th day of May, 1865.
[Signed]
"J. F. HARTRANFT,
"_Brevet Major General and
Special Provost Marshal General_."
The accused severally plead as follows:--
To the specification, "Not guilty."
To the charge, "Not guilty."
The Commission then proceeded to consider the rules and regulations
by which its proceedings should be governed or conducted. The
prisoners were served, as we have seen, with a due notice of the
offenses with which they were charged, and required to be confronted
with the witnesses against them. They were allowed the benefit of
counsel of their own choice and compulsory attendance of witnesses
in their defense. In short, they were accorded every condition that
was necessary to a fair and impartial trial. In this case the only
qualification required of the counsel selected or employed by the
accused in their defense was, that they should submit or file evidence
of having taken the oath required by an act of Congress, or should take
said oath before being permitted to appear in the case.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account