testimony, where evidence bearing upon the guilt of Mrs. Surratt alone was admitted at all times as evidence against her son. It appeared in the argument of the District Attorney, when he compares the mother of the prisoner to Herodias and Lucrezia Borgia, and "traces her connection with the crime" and "leaves it to the jury to say whether she was guilty;" where he pleads, like Antony, in behalf of the members of the Military Commission that they were "all honorable men," and were not to be blamed for obeying the orders of the President. It appeared in the arguments of the counsel for the prisoner, when Mr. Merrick taunted the Government that they were pressing for a verdict to "vindicate the fearful action they had committed;" when he appealed to the jury to "deal fairly by this young man," "even if the reputation of Joseph Holt should not have the vindication of innocent blood;" when he invoked the spirit of Mrs. Surratt as a witness for her son, and rebuked the prosecution for objecting to the admission of her dying declaration when they were putting her again on trial though dead; when Mr. Bradley charged that for four weeks and more they had been trying Mrs. Surratt and not her son, and denounced Weichman and Lloyd, avowing that "the proof against her was not sufficient to have hung a dog" and was "rotten to the core." It appeared in the speech of Judge Pierrepont, when he flourished the record of the Military Commission before the jury, and asserted that the recommendation of Mrs. Surratt to mercy was attached to it; in his avowal of his belief in her guilt; in his extolling the jury as a tribunal far more fit for the trial of such crimes than any military court; and in his covert threat that the people would punish the City of Washington by the removal of the Capitol, if the jury, by their verdict, did not come up to the high standard erected for them. And, lastly, it appeared in the charge of the Judge, which is a model of what a one-sided charge ought to be. It opens with the words of the Old Testament: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Then follows a sneer at the "sentimental philosophers," who were opposed to capital punishment. Then the Court inveighs against some imaginary advocates, who argued that to kill a king was a greater crime than to kill a president; and then casts an imputation upon the integrity of the decision in the Milligan Case, as "predicated upon a misapprehension of historic truth," and that therefore "we could not perhaps have looked for a more rightful deduction," "all loyal hearts" being "unprepared for such an announcement." The Judge, then, holds that the Court will take judicial cognizance that the crime charged was the murder of the President of the United States, and a more heinous offense than the murder of a simple individual. He, then, complacently sets aside the rule of Sir Matthew Hale, implicitly followed since, as he himself admits, by "writers and