CHAPTER II.
Animus of the Judges.
On Saturday, the 13th of May, an incident occurred which throws much light upon the judicial temper of the Court at the very beginning of the trial. On that day Reverdy Johnson appeared as counsel for Mrs. Surratt. Admitted to the bar in 1815, Senator of the United States as far back as 1845, Attorney-General of the United States as long ago as 1849, and holding the position of Senator of the United States again at that very moment; having taken the constitutional oath in all the Courts including the Supreme Court of the United States at whose bar he was one of the most eminent advocates; three years after this time to be Minister Plenipotentiary to England; as he stood there, venerable both in years and in honors, appearing at great personal and professional sacrifice, gratuitously, for a woman in peril of her life, one would have thought him secure at least from insult. Yet no sooner did he announce his intention, if the Court would permit him at any time to attend to his imperative duties elsewhere, to act as counsel, than the President of the Commission read aloud a note he had received from one of his colleagues objecting “to the admission of Reverdy Johnson as a counsel before this Court on the ground that he does not recognize the moral obligation of an oath that is designed as a test of loyalty;” and, in support of the objection, referring to Mr. Johnson’s letter to the people of Maryland pending the adoption of the new constitution of 1864.
The following colloquy then took place:
“Mr. Johnson.—May I ask who the member of the Court is that makes that objection?
“The President.—Yes, sir, it is General Harris, and, if he had not made it, I should have made it myself.
“Mr. Johnson.—I do not object to it at all. The Court will decide if I am to be tried.
“The President.—The Court will be cleared.
“Mr. Johnson.—I hope I shall be heard.
“General Ekin.—I think it can be decided without clearing the Court.