Recently, there has been some discussion about Booth’s field glass (binoculars). While it is missing now, I thought I’d clear things up by posting some testimony and things related to it that prove that it did exist.

April 28th statement from John Lloyd:
“[Mrs. Surratt] gave me a bundle rolled up at that time, and asked me to put that with [the carbines], which I forgot to tell Col. Wells; and when I opened it to see what it was I found it to be a field glass. I opened it & took it out; it was a curiosity to me. It was double glass & a large one. It was in a case. She said that it was to be given with the other things.”

John Lloyd’s testimony at the Conspiracy trial:
“[Mrs. Surratt] gave me something wrapped up in a piece of paper. I did not know what it was till I took it upstairs; and then I found it to be a field-glass.”

“Q. You are sure it was the same package you examined afterwards?
A. Yes, sir: it was the same.
Q. And it was a field glass?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The same one you handed to Herold?
A. Yes, sir.”

“Q. Did you not give [Booth] all the articles, the field-glass and the monkey-wrench and the rope?
A. No: the rope and monkey wrench were not what I was told to give him. I gave him such things as I was told to give by Mrs. Surratt.
Q. She told you to give him the carbines and whiskey and field glass?
A. Yes, sir; and the whiskey they did not take with them.”

“Q. Did Mrs. Surratt tell you to give the field glass and the whiskey to them?
A. She did.
Q. Why did you not do it?
A. I gave the field glass; but they did not take the whiskey with them.”

So Lloyd was given a package by Mary Surratt that turned out to be the field glass. He subsequently gave it to Herold when he and Booth showed up. The question has been asked then, “What happened to it?” When Booth was cornered and killed at Garrett’s, no one there mentions any field glasses as an item taken from his body. The explanation for this comes from Luther Baker and the Garretts themselves. While the timeline is a little different between the accounts it is most likely that, during the trial, Luther Baker kept hearing about this field glass. He never recovered it so he trekked back to the Garrett’s to look for it. The following is from Luther Baker’s testimony at Johnson’s impeachment proceedings on May 22, 1867:

“About two weeks after that the young Garretts came down with a statement of the articles destroyed in the barn, and an application for damages. They wished me to sign it. I had been trying to find the opera glass which Mrs. Surratt was said to have given to Booth, but I could get no clue whatever to it. I told Garrett that I could not sign the paper until he had given me all the things belonging to Booth that were in their possession. He said he would do so with pleasure. I then said I would go up in a week or ten days, when I expected to get everything which Booth left. I went to the Garrett place, and young Garrett brought me a piece of Booth's crutch and a haversack, and said that was all. Just before dark I went out to where the barn was burned, thinking I might find some remains of the glass. I poked around in the ashes and found some melted lead, (it seemed he had some cartridges with him,) but I found nothing that looked like the opera glass. There was a little boy, about five or six years old, playing around, and on questioning him I learned that Booth gave the opera glass to his sister, Joanna Garrett, and that she had put it in her father's writing desk. Next morning I told the old gentleman what I knew about the opera glass, and that it must be produced. He was much surprised that I should know what had transpired. I called in the daughter, Joanna, and told her she should do one of two things— either produce the opera glass or come with me to Washington. She began to cry, and was very much affected. The father took her aside, and came back and said the opera glass was about nine miles off, with a sister of hers. We rode over there and found it hid in a clothes chest in the garret. I brought it to Washington and turned it over to General Baker, with a request that I might have it, and telling him how I got it. It was a peculiar glass, having three sets of small lenses, with three screws to turn, marked "opera," "marine," and "field." It was a very valuable glass.
Q. Were there any marks on it?
A. None that I observed.
Q. Where is it now?
A. I do not know. I have never seen it since.”

Baker would recount the same basic story one month later at John Surratt’s trial:

“Q. Examine that field-glass, if you please, and state if you identify it.
A. I think it was in the latter part of July, after the assassination, that I first saw this field-glass. I saw it at the Garrett place, where Booth was captured. I was in among the ruins of the barn, poking among the ashes to ascertain if I could find any of the remains of the field-glass which I had been told
Mr. BRADLEY. Never mind what you had been told.
WITNESS, resuming. I found the remains of a cartridge-box ; some lead, which seemed to have been melted, and a little wad. While I was there I ascertained from a small boy, who belonged to the place
Mr. BRADLEY. Stop.
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY. Don't state what the boy said. Just state what you did after having this conversation with the boy.
WITNESS. I then asked Mr. Garrett if he had in his possession a field-glass which Booth brought there.
Mr. BRADLEY. Don't state what he answered.
Mr. PIERREPONT. Just state what you did after the conversation with Mr. Garrett.
WITNESS. During a conversation with him I ascertained
The COURT. Don't state what you ascertained from this conversation.
By Mr. PIERREPONT:
Q. You ascertained something that led you to do what?
A. To go in search of the glass.
Q. Did you find it?
A. Mr. Garrett and myself found it about nine miles from Garrett's place.
Q. Was it the same Mr. Garrett who was on the stand here?
A. Yes, sir. It was secreted in a chamber, in a clothes chest. I took it and brought it to Washington. General Baker and I took it to the War Department, and there it was left.
Q. And this is the same glass?
A. This is the glass, as far as my judgment goes.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. BRADLEY:
Q. Is there any mark on that glass by which you identify it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it?
A. This thumb-screw and the label on it, I noticed as being peculiar.
Q. You never saw one before?
A. No, sir; I never saw one like it before.
Mr. PIERREPONT. Just show that to the jury; I want them to see it.
Mr. BRADLEY. Never mind. You will have to bring it nearer to the party than that to make it evidence. There is nothing whatever to connect it with these parties.
The ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY. We think there is.
Mr. PIERREPONT. In our view it is evidence enough to go to the jury.
Mr. BRADLEY. The witness is now under my cross-examination; when I am through you can take him.
Q. You never saw one before like it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nor since?
A. No, sir.
Q. At whose house did you find it?
A. I do not remember the name of the farmer, but about nine miles from the Garrett place. I think they were relatives of the Garretts.
Q. Was it in the river or not?
A. It was not.
Q. In what direction?
A. In the direction of Fredericksburg, rather up the river.
Q. On the main road from Port Royal to Fredericksburg?
A. No, sir; no main travel on that road.
Q. Are you quite sure Colonel Conger did not take that glass from Booth?
A. Yes, sir.”

The core facts of Baker’s account is supported by Lucinda K. B. Holloway. Ms. Holloway was Richard Henry Garrett’s sister-in-law and live-in teacher of his children. In April of 1897, an account by Ms. Holloway was published in many newspapers nationwide. The following is from this account:

“After all had left and the family had become a little composed, I went to the bookcase to get some books for the children, as I was teaching school in the family at the time. The first thing that greeted my eyes were the opera glasses. I knew they did not belong to any of the family. I concluded they must be Booth’s, so I took them to Mr. Garrett and asked him what I must do with them. He replied by saying: ‘Take them out of my sight. I do not wish to see anything that will remind me of this dreadful affair.’
I told him I would send them up to my mother’s in a day or two. I took a pin and marked ‘J.W.B’ under the buckle on the strap. And during the day my brother came to Mr. Garrett’s and I gave them to him to take up to my mother, thinking they were too valuable to be destroyed as Mr. Garrett had directed me to do.
The next evening Lieutenant Baker, in company with Jack Garrett, came to Mr. Garrett’s in pursuit of them. They did not know really that they were there, but simply supposed that Booth had them and thought they might be there. Lieutenant Baker asked Mr. Garrett if they were not, and without hesitancy he told them I had them. He then came to me and asked where they were. I very reluctantly told him where they were. Lieutenant Baker and Jack Garrett went up to my mother’s, which was about eight miles, and got them. They came back to Mr. Garrett’s about four o’clock in the evening, and spent the night and returned to Washington the next day.”

While Ms. Holloway’s account has Baker retrieving the field glass just a few days after Booth’s capture, this is probably incorrect. Jack Garrett was arrested and held as a witness for the trial. He was not freed from jail until May 18th meaning Baker’s trek had to be after this. In addition, Baker mentions his return to the Garrett’s occurred after he had been asked by the Garrett family to sign an affidavit regarding their losses in the barn. Richard Henry Garrett did not write up his claim until June 28th matching Baker’s account that he didn’t retrieve the field glass until July.

Overall, the field glass existed and it was turned over to the War Department after the trial was over. It was mentioned at the Johnson impeachment proceedings and identified at John Surratt’s trial. From there, who knows what happened to it.

Dave,

As usual, I love you! You either have a photographic memory or you have a wonderful filing system. I am juggling three big projects at work right now, and you saved me having to hunt this information down. Thank you so much.

Folks - Dave is going to be one of the presenters at the Surratt Conference in March; and he will be speaking on the Garretts, one of the cases of collateral damage from Booth's actions.

(07-09-2012 12:07 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Dave,

As usual, I love you! You either have a photographic memory or you have a wonderful filing system. I am juggling three big projects at work right now, and you saved me having to hunt this information down. Thank you so much.

Folks - Dave is going to be one of the presenters at the Surratt Conference in March; and he will be speaking on the Garretts, one of the cases of collateral damage from Booth's actions.

Agreed, Laurie! We are so very fortunate to have Dave with us in "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood!" I love how he can simply pull facts off the top of his head!

Great Info Dave!

I was particularly interested to know if the field glasses were readily identifiable. This line clinched it for me.

"It was a peculiar glass, having three sets of small lenses, with three screws to turn, marked "opera," "marine," and "field." It was a very valuable glass."

My theory is that Booth never meant to go to the Surratt House to pick up the field glasses anymore than he planned to visit Dr. Mudd. I think this was just another bread crumb he left to point the posse southward. Similar to the map he left with Atzerodt and the directions he gave to Cobb.

It makes too much sense not to believe that he meant to ride north and catch the train to Canada via Annapolis Junction or Baltimore. If he made it great! If not he’d be in his hometown with plenty of friends and places to hide until he could catch either another train or a ship out of the country like John Surratt did. Going South he was headed straight into the entire U.S. Army and an area of the country where shipping was practically non-existent.

I know that it goes against the accepted truth that's been stated for 147 years but if you were Booth why would you plan to go South?

According to the Baltimore Sun, June 25, 1867, Gen. E.D. Townsend was called to the witness stand after John Lloyd had given his testimony about the items he gave Booth the night of the assassination. Townsend produced a pair of field glasses that were presumed to be Booth's - the testimony reveals that Townsend had received the field glasses (and a "breast pin") from Gen. Eckert, Asst. Sec. of War, in August 1865. Eckert was "about retiring from office" and Townsend received them as "adjutant general of the army; it was never out of his possession except on June 17th, when it was given to Col. Conger, and afterwards returned to witness..."

---

It appears that Townsend and Eckert divied up a lot of the evidence.

(07-09-2012 01:17 PM)Rsmyth Wrote:  According to the Baltimore Sun, June 25, 1867, Gen. E.D. Townsend was called to the witness stand after John Lloyd had given his testimony about the items he gave Booth the night of the assassination. Townsend produced a pair of field glasses that were presumed to be Booth's - the testimony reveals that Townsend had received the field glasses (and a "breast pin") from Gen. Eckert, Asst. Sec. of War, in August 1865. Eckert was "about retiring from office" and Townsend received them as "adjutant general of the army; it was never out of his possession except on June 17th, when it was given to Col. Conger, and afterwards returned to witness..."

---

It appears that Townsend and Eckert divied up a lot of the evidence.

Agreed, Rich. Eckert seems to have gotten a lot - I always wondered if he got the majority of Lew Powell's effects; clothing, etc.

You appear to be right Rich. That explains why, at the Impeachment proceedings, the questioners didn't know where the field glass was and yet it appeared a month later at the Surratt trial. Baker gave his testimony on June 25th, which fits your timeline perfectly. So, sadly, it is not hidden away in the NPS collection. It is just lost to history. Unless there is a Townsend collection somewhere...

The field glass was described as distinctive in that they had settings for field, marine and theater use. Twenty-nine years later, Richard Baynham Garrett described the glasses as follows:
“When Mr. Boyd retired we assisted him to undress. My childish curiosity was attracted to a belt containing two big pistols and a pearl handled revolver, which he hung on the bedpost. A pair of pearl opera glasses were also laid on a chair.”

(07-09-2012 01:33 PM)Rsmyth Wrote:  The field glass was described as distinctive in that they had settings for field, marine and theater use. Twenty-nine years later, Richard Baynham Garrett described the glasses as follows:
“When Mr. Boyd retired we assisted him to undress. My childish curiosity was attracted to a belt containing two big pistols and a pearl handled revolver, which he hung on the bedpost. A pair of pearl opera glasses were also laid on a chair.”

Jerry,

Why go charging into enemy terriory, the North, when in the South he was expecting to be welcomed with open arms? Obviously such was not the case but even though trains would be faster I would think he would be a sitting duck. They could and did shut down all the trains and I would suspect, search them, photo in hand to identify him with.

(07-10-2012 08:41 AM)Lindsey Wrote:  

(07-09-2012 01:33 PM)Rsmyth Wrote:  The field glass was described as distinctive in that they had settings for field, marine and theater use. Twenty-nine years later, Richard Baynham Garrett described the glasses as follows:
“When Mr. Boyd retired we assisted him to undress. My childish curiosity was attracted to a belt containing two big pistols and a pearl handled revolver, which he hung on the bedpost. A pair of pearl opera glasses were also laid on a chair.”

Jerry,

Why go charging into enemy terriory, the North, when in the South he was expecting to be welcomed with open arms? Obviously such was not the case but even though trains would be faster I would think he would be a sitting duck. They could and did shut down all the trains and I would suspect, search them, photo in hand to identify him with.

Lindsey,
Had he done the deed a year earlier maybe, but there was nowhere to go southward and he knew it. Even Stringfellow made his escape northward the month before, Booth had to be aware of it, he was a spy with access to the South's coded messages.

The idea that he would be welcome with open arms in the South is just a myth perpetuated by authors who theorized that his actual route was what was planned all along. These same authors don't believe that Mudd's house was his original destination but at the same time have no clue as to where he actually intended to go that night.

It's a product of the fanciful writing at the time. It's like the entire South suddenly agreed with General Joe Johnston who said that it was "the worst thing that could have happened to the South", and the 'open arms' quickly shut tight. The South suddenly got religion!

As an actor Booth could easily disguise himself and by the time photos could have been hand delivered to all stations he'd have been long gone. Baltimore was also one of the busiest port cities in North America. He'd have had a much better chance of getting on a ship there than anywhere in the South. He had to get out of the country asap and going southward was not the way to do it.

If I were Booth, I would have headed south because the war was still going on, the cities and towns were in chaos, and he could just join the ranks of unknowns wandering around in an area where it would have been nearly impossible to locate him or identify him. The Yanks were more interested in finding Jefferson Davis in that region - and look how long it took them to get him. As for Judah Benjamin (who I still want to make the mastermind behind everything), he managed to leave the country with ease.

If I were Booth, I would have bet that the authorities would go looking for my family, and they were in Philadelphia and points north. To me, I would assume that the authorities would assume that I was heading for Canada and asylum - so I'd go the other way.

I concur, Laurie and I feel the same way about Benjamin. I think that stinker kicked up a lot of dust. I just wish it could be proven.

(07-11-2012 09:17 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I concur, Laurie and I feel the same way about Benjamin. I think that stinker kicked up a lot of dust. I just wish it could be proven.

I definitely agree with both of y'all! It's quite possible - and as for Benjamin -- yes, I've always believed that he was behind the kidnap plot. Surratt worked for him and, I also believe Powell did as well....

(07-11-2012 08:03 PM)L Verge Wrote:  If I were Booth, I would have bet that the authorities would go looking for my family, and they were in Philadelphia and points north. To me, I would assume that the authorities would assume that I was heading for Canada and asylum - so I'd go the other way.

And you'd have been caught just like Booth was.

Joining the ranks of unknowns wandering around in an area, living hand to mouth was not going to get him out of the country and going south was taking him further from his goal unless you don't believe his goal was to leave the country. If not what was his ultimate destination?

What were his options for succeeding going south? The people of the south were starving and under the terror of the army. He knew that before he committed the act. It was partially the reason he assassinated Lincoln.

Benjamin barely got away using the southern train system a week before the assassination. He was able to win the race to Florida ahead of the army of occupation. The train system was gone before Booth did his deed.

Who did he know in the south who could help him? Obviously not many. The organization he represented was in the north, the best avenues of escape was northward which is why he left his bread crumbs pointing south.

I believe that Booth was seriously considering going to Mexico and perhaps on to South America, where so many Confederates had headed. In my estimation, Booth may have still had the old ideas of the Knights of the Golden Circle -- establish the slave system south of the border.

Remember where John Surratt, Jr. headed for a little R&R following his trial? South America! Checking out the possibility of joining some old comrades down there? We don't know, but he managed to miss his mother's reinterment while visiting down there.