The Pope tries to hide his tracks

With a shrewd show of virtuous innocence, the Pope hastened to clear his skirts, and those of his underlings, by ordering his arrest, and rendition to our government, without waiting for its requisition. He was arrested by the Pope’s authority, but was allowed to escape by his guards; and thus given another chance for life and liberty. The story was, that he made his escape by a bold leap over a precipice, at the risk of his life. “Tell this to the marines; the old sailors will not believe it.” He was finally captured at Alexandria, Egypt, and was brought home in chains, where he was held to answer for his crime. Let us here pause a moment to consider the relations of the Hierarchy to this crime.

The testimony given on the trial of John H. Surratt, clearly convicts two of its priests, Boucher and LaPierre, of being accomplices in the conspiracy; and by implication, as clearly convicts the Bishop of Montreal, Bishop Bourget. This testimony was spread before the world, and so must have been known to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, yet it never called any of these priests to accountability, or held them responsible for this crime; the crime of the ages! No one of them was ever held to have forfeited his standing or good character in the church, on account of his connection with this conspiracy; and so, the Hierarchy stands before the world today, as having given its approval to their conduct in this matter.

We now come to the trial of John H. Surratt before a civil court. It is not our purpose to go into a general review of the trial; but only to show the interest taken in it by the Roman Catholic priesthood; the animus of the defense toward the government; and the means resorted to, to make sure of his acquittal. The hand of the Jesuit is everywhere traceable throughout the history of this trial; and by that hand, one of the most important trials that the history of American jurisprudence records, was well nigh turned into a farce by the skill and cunning of the defense. The cunning of the Jesuit was exercised in the preparations made in advance, to make sure of acquittal of the accused. The law of Congress, specifying particularly how juries to try cases in the criminal court, in the District of Columbia, should be secured, and was entirely ignored, in some of its most important and essential particulars. Counsel for the defense had been selected with special care. There were three of these: Mr. Merrick and the two Bradleys, Sr. and Jr. Of these, only one, Mr. Merrick, was a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bradleys were Episcopalians; but in their political sympathies, hostile to the government; and in full sympathy with its enemies, and with the assassins.

When the jury that had been drawn for this trial was challenged by the prosecution, and good reasons shown for its rejection, the counsel for the defense made a most vigorous, earnest and persistent effort to prevent its being set aside by the court. It is evident that they must have had a special reason for being so urgent for its retention, as the failure of the officers, whose duty it was to secure this jury, to observe the requirements of the law, was made so apparent that it could not be controverted. It leaked out, however, that sixteen out of the twenty-four drawn were Roman Catholics. and so, the reason for their determined effort for its retention was made obvious. It was set aside, and a venire was summoned, from which to obtain a jury. A jury was finally obtained, through a two-day effort and as the prosecution desired to remove, as far as possible, all religious and political considerations and influences from the trial, a considerable number of Roman Catholics were accepted on this jury. The trial then proceeded.

The defense proceeded at once to put the government and not the prisoner at the bar, on trial, They arraigned it for the murder of an innocent woman, Mrs. Surratt; and for having secured her conviction through an illegal tribunal, organized to convict, and not to try. By every means in their power they aroused a partisan spirit of political and religious bigotry; and so, surrounded the court with the air and spirit of a political convention, and removed, as far as possible, from the trial, the air and spirit of a judicial procedure. The result was a hung jury. The author was informed by a very intelligent man, who took a prominent part in this trial, that, meeting one of the jurors, who appeared to be a very frank and intelligent man, on the day after the trial, he asked him if he felt free to tell how the jury stood. He replied that they were very nearly equally divided for conviction and acquittal. He then asked him if they did not think that he was proven guilty. “Oh, yes,” he replied, “we thought he was proven guilty, but we thought his conviction would be a triumph for the Radicals, and we thought that the hanging of his mother was about enough.”

A most noteworthy fact in connection with this trial, as bearing upon the subject of our investigation, was the deep interest manifested by the Roman Catholic priesthood of Washington in this trial; and their sympathy with the accused. There was scarcely a day, during the trial, but what one or more of them was found in the courtroom. They also made it manifest that they were there in behalf of the prisoner at the bar; and that they were ready to aid in his defense was very apparent.

Whenever the prosecution brought a witness on the stand whose testimony was particularly damaging to the accused, a witness was always found to rebut his testimony; and was always a member of the Roman Catholic Church. It was also a very significant fact, that no one of all these witnesses was able to pass the ordeal of Judge Pierrepont’s cross-examination unscathed. It looked as though the task of these priests was to aid the prisoner’s counsel, by finding the witnesses that they needed; and stuffing them with the needed testimony. It was thus made manifest, during the trial, on more than one occasion, that witnesses had been hunted up and furnished with a cooked up testimony to meet the requirements of the case. It is worthy of note that whenever the prosecution thought it important to rebut any testimony a witness was always promptly found for them: and was always a Catholic. The manner of these witnesses in testifying and the fact that they could never stand the test of Judge Pierrepont’s searching cross-examination, justly gave rise to the suspicion that they had been suborned and were delivering a cooked up testimony. And these facts gave rise to the suspicion that it was the special business of someone to find and stuff the witnesses for the occasion.

John H. Surratt had been a student at St. Mary’s College for a year or two, at the breaking out of the war. He had commenced a collegiate course, having the priesthood in view. His sympathies were so strongly with the South that he left the college, gave up his priestly aspirations, and engaged actively in the secret service of the Confederate government.

As a student, he was very popular at the college and seemed to have won the favor of the president and faculty. The summer vacation at the college occurred during the progress of the trial, and the president took occasion to spend a day in the courtroom, and sat, all day, at the side of the prisoner in the dock. His presence there was no doubt intended to have its effect on the Roman Catholic members of the jury. It was as much as to say. “You see which side I am on.” Many of the students of that college took occasion to visit their former fellow student during the trial; and always manifested their sympathy for him by the warmest friendly greetings; taking their places at his side.

How different was their treatment of his, and their fellow student, L.J. Wiechmann, who has also had the priesthood in view, but finding himself unable to continue at college, turned aside, temporarily, to replenish his pecuniary resources. He first found employment as a teacher in one of the Roman Catholic schools in the city of Washington; but finding a more lucrative position in one of the government offices, in the military department, he resigned his position as teacher, and became a clerk under General Hoffman, who was Commissary General of prisoners.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: