The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt. DeWitt David Miller

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ a Maryland lady; and thinking that I could be of service to her, and protesting as she has done her innocence to me – of the facts I know nothing – because I deemed it right, I deemed it due to the character of the profession to which I belong, and which is not inferior to the noble profession of which you are members, that she should not go undefended. I knew I was to do it voluntarily, without compensation; the law prohibits me from receiving compensation; but if it did not, understanding her condition, I should never have dreamed of refusing upon the ground of her inability to make compensation.”

      General Harris, in reply, insisted that the remarks of Mr. Johnson, explanatory of the letter, corroborated his construction. “I understand him to say that the doctrine which he taught the people of his state was, that because the Convention had framed an oath, which was unconstitutional and illegal in his opinion, therefore it had no moral binding force, and that people might take it and then go and vote without any regard to the subject matter, of the oath.”

      Mr. Johnson, interrupting, denied having said any such thing. General Hunter, thereupon, to help his colleague out, had the remarks read from the record. Mr. Johnson assenting to the correctness of the report, General Harris continued: “If that language does not justify my conclusion, I confess I am unable to understand the English language;” and then repeated his construction of the letter.

      After he had concluded, Mr. Johnson endeavored to show the author of “Calvinism Vindicated” that he did not understand the English language, by pointing out the distinction between stating “there was no harm in taking an oath, and telling the people of Maryland that there would be no harm in breaking it after it was taken.” Again repelling the misconstruction attempted to be put upon his words, he proceeded to open a new line as follows:

      “But, as a legal question, it is something new to me that the objection, if it was well founded in fact is well founded in law. Who gives to the Court the jurisdiction to decide upon the moral character of the counsel who may appear before them? Who makes them the arbiters of the public morality and professional morality? What authority have they, under their commission, to rule me out, or to rule any other counsel out, upon the ground, above all, that he does not recognize the validity of an oath, even if they believed it?”

      General Harris, in rejoinder, stated that under the rules adopted by the Commission gentlemen appearing as counsel for the accused must either produce a certificate of having taken the oath of loyalty or take it before the Court, and that therefore the Court had a right to inquire whether counsel held such opinions as to be incompetent to take the oath. He then expressed his gladness “to give the gentleman the benefit of his disclaimer. It is satisfactory to me, but it is, I must insist, a tacit admission that there was some ground for the view upon which my objection was founded.”

      Mr. Johnson closed this irritating discussion by saying:

      “The order under which you are assembled gives you no authority to refuse me admission because you have no authority to administer the oath to me. I have taken the oath in the Senate of the United States – the very oath that you are administering; I have taken it in the Circuit Court of the United States; I have taken it in the Supreme Court of the United States; and I am a practitioner in all the Courts of the United States in nearly all the States; and it would be a little singular if one who has a right to appear before the supreme judicial tribunal of the land, and who has a right to appear before one of the Legislative departments of the Government whose law creates armies, and creates judges and courts-martial, should not have a right to appear before a court-martial. I have said all that I proposed to say.”

      The President of the Court, who had already made himself a party to this gross insult to a distinguished counsel – as if disappointed that the affair was about to end so smoothly – here burst out:

      “Mr. Johnson has made an intimation in regard to holding members of this Court personally responsible for their action.

      “Mr. Johnson. – I made no such intimation; did not intend it.

      “The President. – Then I shall say nothing more, sir.

      “Mr. Johnson. – I had no idea of it. I said I was too old to feel such things, if I even would.

      “The President. – I was going to say that I hoped the day had passed when freemen from the North were to be bullied and insulted by the humbug chivalry; and that, for my own part, I hold myself personally responsible for everything I do here. The Court will be cleared.”

      On reopening, the Judge-Advocate read a paper from General Harris withdrawing his objection because of Mr. Johnson’s disclaimer. General Wallace remarked that it must be known to every member of the Commission that Mr. Senator Johnson had taken the oath in the Senate of the United States. He therefore suggested that the requirement of his taking the oath be dispensed with.

      “The suggestion was acquiesced in, nem. con.

      “Mr. Johnson. – I appear, then, as counsel for Mrs. Surratt.”

      In reviewing, at this distance of time, the foregoing scene, it is scarcely possible to realize the state of mind of a member of a tribunal claiming at least to be a court of justice, that could prompt such an onslaught – so shocking to the universal expectation of dignity and decorum, not to say absolute impartiality, in a judge.

      The interpretation put upon the letter of Reverdy Johnson to his constituents by Generals Harris and Hunter was the ordinary, ill-considered, second-hand version circulated by blind party hostility. This is clearly shown by the fact that the objection of General Harris was not founded upon a recent perusal of the letter, but upon his own recollection of the impression it made in his own party circles the year before.

      When, on the next Wednesday, General Harris, having in the meantime looked it up, presented a copy of the incriminated opinion, prefacing a request that it be made a part of the record by the sneering remark that “the Honorable gentleman ought to be very thankful to me for having made an occasion for him to disclaim before the country any obliquity of intention in writing that letter;” and, on the suggestion of General Hunter, the letter was read; every fair minded man ought to have been convinced that it was open to such a malign misconstruction only by an unscrupulous political enemy.

      But suppose for a moment that their own hasty and uncharitable construction was correct, what right – what color of justification – did that give these two military Judges to make that letter of the year before the pretext for a sudden attack in open court upon such a man as Reverdy Johnson, and on the consecrated occasion of his appearing as counsel for a lady on trial for her life?

      As to General Harris’ argument that the requirement of an oath gave the Commission a right to inquire whether the written opinions of a counsel chosen for a defendant, previously delivered as a party leader, were of such a character as to render him incompetent to take an oath which the Supreme Court of the United States and the Senate of the United States had recognized his competency to take; why, it is charitable to suppose – and his subsequent claim would have been scouted as preposterous in any law-court in the world.

      With regard to General Hunter, his ferocious personal defiance, hurled from the very Bench, demonstrated in a flash his preëminent unfitness for any function that is judicial even in a military sense. It is manifest that this whole attack, whether concerted or not, was not made from any conscientious regard for the sanctity of an oath, nor from any sensitive fear that Reverdy Johnson, as an oath-breaker, might contaminate the tribunal; but it was either a mere empty ebullition of party spleen, or of party hatred towards a distinguished democrat, or it was made with a deliberate design to rob a poor woman of any probable advantage such eminent counsel might procure for her.

      And whether the latter terrible suspicion be well founded or not, true it is that СКАЧАТЬ