When was Reverdy Johnson Entered on the Record?

[RobertLC]

This is a return visit to my posting on February 17 regarding when Reverdy Johnson was accepted as Mary Surratt’s counsel.

We know that Pitman was the Recorder to the Commission and his version of the testimony includes this May 12 entry on page 22, “The accused, MARY E. SURRATT, applied for permission to introduce the Hon. Reverdy Johnson as additional counsel for her, A member of the Commission (General T. M. Harris) objected…” Harris subsequently withdrew his objection and Johnson was accepted.

In her book, “The Assassin’s Accomplice,” Kate Larson notes on page 141 that the challenge to Reverdy Johnson occurred on May 12. And Edward Steers, Jr., in his book, “Blood on the Moon,” on page 221, also places the objection to Johnson on May 12.

However, Poore places this action on May 13. Page 51, “The JUDGE ADVOCATE. It is proper that the names of all gentlemen who appear as counsel should be entered on the record. Do I understand Mr. Johnson as appearing for any of these prisoners?” Page 52, “MR. JOHNSON. I do not know whether I shall be able to appear or not. I have taken no part in the case …”

Johnson did not question witnesses on May 12, but Aiken and Clampitt did. Johnson first questioned a witness on May 13 (Louis Weichmann).

Can someone direct me to additional information that confirms which record is correct? Have I missed something? Or have I misunderstood Poore’s account?

Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Bob

[RJNorton]

Bob, I checked Bettie Trindal's book on Mary Surratt, and she also has this happening on May 12. However, I also checked the Peterson version of the trial, and if I am reading it correctly, it says May 13.

It would seem that the New York Times (if I am reading correctly) has it on May 13th.

http://www.nytimes.com/1865/05/15/news/t...wanted=all

This is confusing.

[RobertLC]

I agree, Roger, that it is confusing. I also agree with you that Peterson and the NYT place it on May 13th.

Moreover, it is interesting that Johnson did not question witnesses until the 13th, which would support the fact that he wasn’t there on the 12th. Aiken and Clampitt questioned witnesses on May 12th.

It is an interesting and confusing conflict.

Bob

[Dennis Urban]

In the book, The Trial, edited by Ed Steers, Jr., which copies the 421 page Pitman version of the trial transcript, see the chapter "Proceedings of a Military Commission", page 22. This page references the transcript from May 12 and quotes a letter (in quotation marks) over the signature of Reverdy Johnson relative to the taking of the oath. Immediately after that is a statement by Mr. Johnson. After the statement the objection to his representing Mary Surratt was withdrawn. While it is not specifically clear that Johnson made this statement verbally in the courtroom on May 12 this transcript reads like he was present to make the statement.

This is by no means definitive that he was present in the courtroom on May 12th but I'd rather think that he was. The fact that he did not question witnesses on May 12 does not mean he was not present. He may have let Aiken and Clampitt take that lead, knowing he was not not planning to be present much of the time. I sure wish I know what was in his mind for not being the lead attorney. Hope this helps.

This mystery is like my recent post of trying to determine if Aiken and Clampitt actually observed the hanging of their client. Some things may never be known for sure.

[RobertLC]

Hi, Dennis!

Thanks for responding. You are right, there are some mysteries that will forever remain a mystery.

The points made in your response were noteworthy. I was thus prompted to dig a little deeper.

I decided to read the handwritten pages from the trial. I guess we can’t get any more original than that. And here is what I found.

On May 11, Mary Surratt applied to the Commission for Aiken and Clampitt to be her attorneys. They were accepted. On May 12, she challenged the jurisdiction of the Military Commission with Aiken and Clampitt, on the record, as her attorneys. No mention is made, in the handwritten record of May 12, of Reverdy Johnson.

However, on May 13, the handwritten record shows that Mary Surratt applied to the Commission to accept Reverdy Johnson as an attorney for her. The challenge by Gen. T. M. Harris ensued.

The Commission took a one-hour recess and at 2 o’clock p.m., the Commission resumed its session. At that time, Harris withdrew his objection. Later that afternoon, Johnson questioned Weichmann.

So at this point in time, I think I have to side with the original handwritten record and accept May 13 as the date Johnson was accepted at an attorney for Mary Surratt. Perhaps Pitman got dates mixed up.

Thanks.

Bob

[Dennis Urban]

Thanks for the information, Bob. Can you clue me (and the rest of the group) into where I might view those hand written pages?

The Pitman printing is an abridged version of the entire transcript so Steers went with what he saw in Pitman. Clearly the reference to the Johnson verbal statement is under the date of May 12 in Steers book. Steers appears to simply cut and paste the abridged Pitman text into his book. Since there is no May 13 date in the Steers copied text for the acceptance of Johnson as counsel for MS, Pitman may have failed to include the date for the removal of the objection and the acceptance of Johnson.

[Dennis Urban]

Update: The Surratt House Museum website has the complete published transcription (1865) of Ben Perley Poore. According to Steers, Perley Poore published the transcripts taken from the daily Washington National Intelligencer . On May 11 that transcription notes specifically that Reverdy Johnson was not present but solicited to appear on behalf of Mary Surratt. Johnson is not mentioned at all on May 12 and the cross-examinations are done by Aiken and Clampitt.

On Saturday, May 13 the Judge Advocate opens the day's proceedings by asking if Mr. Johnson is "appearing for any of these prisoners." (bottom pf page 51). Johnson then makes his initial statement to the court. From that statement one can deduce that Johnson had not previously addressed the court.

"MR. JOHNSON. I do not know whether I shall be able to appear or not. I have taken no part in the case thus far, except to speak to the counsel. Whether I shall appear or not will depend on whether I can find that I can stay as long as may be necessary. I have no objection to appearing if the Court will permit me to leave it at any time."

To me this initial statement by Reverdy Johnson is clear and definitive. Johnson first appeared when court opened on Saturday morning May 13.

[RobertLC]

Dennis,

I agree with you. Now, I think that all the references to Johnson first appearing on the 12th are incorrect. As we dig into this, it becomes pretty clear that Johnson first appeared on May 13th.

The handwritten copies that I use are from the National Archives and are available through fold3.com. It is a wonderful resource that I have used for years.

I’m glad you joined the thread. We’ve made an interesting discovery or at least a clarification.

Thanks again.

Bob

---

Roger,

I'm not as confused as I was when I began this thread. After going through the original handwritten records, it became clear that Johnson first appeared in court on May 13th and not May 12th.

I can see why so many people have used Pitman's account, but it seems to be inaccurate in this particular case.

Thanks.

Bob

[RJNorton]

Thanks, Bob. And thanks to both you and Dennis for getting to the bottom of it and clearing things up.