witness's language, "Before God, sir, I do not
know this man, and I have never seen him." An addition to this is
found in the testimony of the same witness, as he was drawn out by
the judge advocate. The witness repeats the language of
Mrs. Surratt, "Before God, sir, I do not know this man, and I have
never seen him, and did not hire him to dig a gutter for me." The
fact of the photographs and card of the State arms of Virginia have
ceased to be of the slightest importance, since the explanations
given in evidence concerning them, and need not be alluded to. If
there is any doubt as to whom they all belonged, reference to the
testimony of Misses Surratt and Fitzpatrick will settle it.

These three circumstances constitute the part played by the accused,
Mary E. Surratt, in this great conspiracy. They are the acts she
has done. They are all that two months of patient and unwearying
investigation, and the most thorough search for evidence that was
probably ever made, have been able to develop against her. The
acquaintance with Booth, the message to Lloyd, the nonrecognition of
Payne, constitute the sum total of her receiving, entertaining,
harboring and concealing, aiding and assisting those named as
conspirators and their confederates, with knowledge of the murderous
and traitorous conspiracy; and with intent to aid, abet, and assist
them in the execution thereof, and in escaping from justice. The
acts she has done, in and of themselves are perfectly innocent. Of
themselves they constitute no crime. They are what you or I or any
of us might have done. She received and entertained Booth, the
assassin, and so did a hundred others. She may have delivered a
message to Lloyd--so have a hundred others. She might have said
she did not know Payne--and who within the sound of my voice can
say they know him now? They are ordinary and commonplace
transactions, such as occur every day and to almost everybody. But
as all the case against her must consist in the guilty intent that
will be attempted to be connected with these facts, we now propose
to show that they are not so clearly proven as to free them from
great doubt, and, therefore, we will inquire:--

2. How are these acts proven? Solely by the testimony of Louis
J. Weichmann and John M. Lloyd. Here let us state that we have no
malice toward either of them, but if in the analysis of their
evidence we should seem to be severe, it is that error and duplicity