Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[loetar44]

Was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 in Elmira, New York or in Washington DC? I know this is an unsolved, but central, question. At the Surratt trial THIRTEEN witnesses were brought to the stand who swear JS was in DC. Only FIVE witnesses were brought to prove his presence in Elmira. According to the jury this was not sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that JS was indeed in DC. In the case he was indeed in DC he must have been arrived about 10.30 AM from Baltimore at the Baltimore and Ohio depot and had afterwards a very busy day in company with Booth, until Booth shot Lincoln, 12 hours after JS's arrival. It’s my feeling (only a feeling, no evidence) that JS was not in Washington, BUT I'm curious about the opinion of the members of this forum: was JS in Elmira or in DC? And why do you think so? Thanks.

[RJNorton]

Hi Kees. You once posted the barber's (Charles Wood's) testimony from the John Surratt trial. I will repost here as it is fascinating. To me this is one of the best arguments for Surratt being in DC on the 14th.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


From: Trial of John H. Surratt in the Criminal Court for the District of Columbia, Hon. George P. Fisher presiding, by John Harrison Surratt, George Purnell Fisher, p. 494 - 498
Wednesday, July 3, 1867
Charles H. M. Wood, sworn and examined.
By Mr. Pierrepont:
Q. What is your business ?
A. I am a barber by trade.
Q. Have you been a barber in the city of Washington for some time ?
A. Yes, sir ; ever since I have been in the city.
Q. How many years ?
A. Since December, 1862.
Q. Where was your barber shop in April, 1865 ?
A. I came here on a Saturday, about the first of September, 1862, and I en-
gaged to go to work at Messrs. Booker & Stewart's barber shop, on E street,
near Grover's theatre, next to the old Union building.
Q. In this city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you. working at the same shop now?
A. No, sir; I now have a barber shop under the Ebbitt House, near Four-
teenth street. I am now in business for myself.
Q. Did you know Booth by sight before the assassination ?
A. Very well, sir.
Q. Did you ever cut his hair ?
A. I have, frequently.
Q. Did you ever shave him ?
A. I have.
Q. You knew him well ?
A. Very well, sir.
The prisoner at the bar was here requested to stand up, which he did.
Q. Have you ever seen that man (pointing to the prisoner at the bar) before ?
A. 1 have.
Q. On the morning of the assassination did you see him ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see him?
A. I saw him at Mr. Booker's barber shop.
Q. What did you do to him ?
A. I shaved him and dressed his hair.
Q. Will you tell us who came into the shop with him, if anybody ?
A. Mr. Booth came in, there were four persons who came together.
Q. Who were the four persons beside Booth and Surratt ?
A. A gentleman I take to be Mr. McLaughlin, they called him “Mac” and
from big appearance; (I having since seen the picture of Mr. McLaughlin,) I
should think it was him.
Q. Did he tell you where he had come from that morning — McLaughlin ?
A. They were speaking of BaltImore; the conversation between them was in
reference to some Baltimore—
Q. Between whom?
A. Between Mr. Booth, Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Surratt, the other gentle-
man that was with them had nothing to say ; he sat down nearly in the rear.
Q. Did you ever see the other man afterwards ?
A. I never saw either of the parties afterwards except this gentleman (the
prisoner.)
Q. Who was the other man, do you know ?
A. I did not know him.
Q. You may describe the man.
A. He was a short thick-set man with a full round head ; he had on dark
clothes which we generally term rebel clothes, and a black slouched hat.
Q. Did you cut Booth's hair that morning ?
A. I did ; I trimmed his hair round and dressed it.
Q. Won't you tell the jury what occurred between Booth and Surratt whilst
you were trimming Booth's hair ?
A. There was nothing particular that occurred
Q. What was said ?
A. Whilst I was waiting on Mr. Booth, Mr. Surratt was sitting just in the
rear of me; the thick-set man was sitting to the left of the looking glass, just
in the rear of my chair. The glass was next to the wall, and Mr. Surratt was
on the right side of the glass, the other one on the left hand. There were not
any words particularly that I remember said or interchanged ; but when I had
got through waiting on Mr. Booth, he (Mr. Booth) got out of the chair and ad-
vanced toward the back part of the shop; Mr. McLaughlin was in that direction
doing something about the glass. Mr. Surratt took my chair immediately on
Mr. Booths' getting out. During the time that I was spreading my hair gown
over him, and making other preparations for shaving him ; this other young
man, rather tall, with dark hair — 1 think not black but dark brown hair — rather
good looking, with a moustache, was figuring before the glass ; he had on a
black frock coat, and putting his hand in his pocket he took out two black braids ;
one of the braids with curls he put on the back of his head, allowing the curls to
hang down, he then took the other braid and put it on the front; it had curls
also, and they hung on the side. When he had done this he said; "John, how
does that look ?"
Q. Whom did he address as John ?
A. I do not know whether it was Mr. Surratt or Booth, but in making the
remark, he said "John." I turned round and said, "he would make a pretty
good looking woman, but he is rather tall." Says he, "Yes," in rather a jocular
manner, laughing at the time. He seemed to look taller to me when he put on
these curls than he did before, though I had not taken particular notice of him
before that. This time Mr. Surratt said to me : “Give me a nice shave and clean
me up nicely ; I am going away in a day or two."
Q. Will you state, when he said “Clean me up nicely” what his condition was
as to being clean or not?
A. He seemed to be a little dusty, as though he had been travelling some little
distance and wanted a little cleaning and dressing up, as I am frequently called
upon by gentlemen coming in after a short travel.
Q. Did he say anything to you about Booth ?
A Yes, sir.
Q. What was that ?
A. He asked me if I noticed that scar on Booth's neck. Says I, “Yes.”
Says he, " They say that is a boil, but it is not a boil; it was a pistol shot" I
observed, “ He must have gone a little too far to the front that time.” This
gentleman (Mr. Surratt) observed, “He like to have lost his head that time."
I then went on and completed the shaving operation. I shaved him clean all
round the face, with the exception of where his moustache was. He had a slight
mustache at the time.
Q. What did you do with the hair?
A. After I was done shaving, I washed him off in the usual way, dressed his
hair, and put on the usual tonics and pomade.
Q. Tell the jury about what time in the morning it was.
A. I think it was near about nine o'clock. I had had my breakfast
Q. Where had you been that morning ?
A. I had been up to Mr. Seward's, and had come down again.
Q. Where did you find Mr. Seward ?
A. In his room, third story.
Q. Was he up or in bed ?
A. He was up.
Q. Did you see any other gentlemen at Mr. Seward’s that morning ?
A. Yes, sir ; I think I did.
Q. Whom did you see ?
A. Mr. Stanton called. Mr. Seward was either on the bed, or on the chair
by the bed, when I shaved him. I do not remember now exactly which.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bradlev.
Q. Where did you commence to work after arriving in this city?
A. I commenced to work at Messrs. Booker & Stewart's, on E street.
Q. And continued to work there until you went to the Ebbitt House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say this thing occurred at the shop of Messrs. Booker & Stewart, about
nine o'clock in the morning?
A. I think it was about nine o'clock ?
Q. And you had been up to Mr. Seward's and shaved him ?
A. Yes, sir, and returned.
Q. Mr. Stanton was there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else was in the shop at the same time, do you remember?
A. There were several hands at work there at the time.
Q. What sort of a looking man was McLaughlin ?
A. The gentleman I have taken to be McLaughlin, they called him “Mac”
in referring to him, was a man quite as tall as Mr. Surratt, I think near about
the height of Mr. Surratt and Booth. They were all three nearly about one
height. Perhaps he might have been a little the tallest.
Q. Was he a fine looking man ?
A. Yes, sir ; he was what I would term a very handsome man.
Q. Do you remember his hair at all ?
A. It was very dark brown. I do not think it was black.
Q. Had he any beard on his face?
A. He had a moustache on, and, if I mistake not, an imperial ; but I am not so
sure about that. I am certain he had a moustache. I took more particular notice
of his hair and his size. He had on a black frockcoat. I think he had a black
silk hat, and light pantaloons.
Q. Do you remember how Mr. Surratt was dressed ?
A. He had on, I think, as near as my memory serves me, rather light clothes,
but I did not take particular notice of his clothes. As soon as he got into my
chair, I took up my hair-gown and spread it all over his clothes, so that you
could not see hardly anything except the tips of his pantaloons.
Q. You saw him while you were shaving Mr. Booth, did you not ?
A. He came in with the rest of the party.
Q. Could not you distinguish him as well as you could distinguish McLaugh-
lin and the other man ?
A. If I had taken that much notice. I took more particular notice of his head
and face.
Q. You had the same opportunity, however, to observe him as you had to
observe Mr. McLaughlin ?
A. As near as I can remember, the clothes he had on were rather light. I
cannot remember the particular kind of clothes, whether woollen, linen, or cotton.
Q. Do you remember what sort of a hat he wore ?
A. I did not take notice of his hat. Gentlemen generally come in there, take
their seats on the side next the wall, and immediately hang their hats on the
rack against the wall.
Q. You say he had no beard on his face?
A. No, sir ; he had a slight mustache.
Q. No imperial, goatee, or anything on his chin ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do I understand you that you had never seen any of these men but Booth
before that morning ?
A. I knew Booth very well. I had seen him in Baltimore, and cut his hair
when a boy.
Q. You had not seen the other three before that time ?
A. No, sir ; I do not think I had seen any of the others.
Q. And you have never seen them since, until you saw Mr. Surratt here ?
A. I live on E Street, just below here, and as I was going down to my dinner
one day, passing this court-house, he was coming out with the jailor. I stood
aside and looked. When I saw him I was utterly astounded. I instantly
thought I recognized in him the gentleman I had shaved and waited on imme-
diately after Mr. Booth, on the morning of the 1 4th of April. It made such an
impression on my mind that I spoke of it.
Q. When was it you met and recognized him ?
A. Last week, I think, Monday or Tuesday.
Q. Do you recollect whether there was anybody in the shop that morning ?
A. The young man that worked in the chair back of me, I think, was in
there. His name is Teebo ; he is a small man. He is now working in Nor-
folk.
Q. Do you know whether there were any other customers ?
A Well, about that time we were very much pressed, and we all had about
as much as we could do, there were so many strangers coming in. The shop
being next to the paymaster's office, soldiers used to come in there in perfect
droves.
Q. Particularly in the morning ?
A Yes, sir, generally pretty hard at work all day at that time.
Q. Was there anybody else there except yourself ?
A. The man who worked next to me in the next chair, I think, was gone to
breakfast about that time.
Q. Do you recollect about what time he went to breakfast ?
A. Some of us took our breakfast before we came to work. Others would be
at the shop and work until we came and then go to breakfast.
Q. What time did that man go to his breakfast ?
A. Between 8 and 9 o'clock, along thereabout
Q. What was his name ?
A. Robert Burton, I think ; I am not sure about the first name.
Q. Where is he ?
A. He is there working at the same place.
Q. Is he not one of the proprietors ?
A No, sir; he was working on the first chair on the left hand' as you enter the door.

[SSlater]

I have to say - Surratt was in Elmira. Why?
1. He was SENT there by Gen. E. G. Lee - to determine "if the prisoners could be released by force" if necessary. Lee was sent to Montreal to raise an Army of "released Prisoners" and attack from Canada.
2. Surratt was Unassigned at the moment, as was Slater. (Slater and Surratt had been together since April 25) Off they went.
3 They finished the job and headed back to Montreal. While on the train, one of L.C.Baker's detectives I. D. him traveling with a Little man. the "Little Man" was bundled up to "his" ears - so was unidentifiable and was not allowed to talk.
4 Surratt signed in at the St. Lawrence Hall (April 18th) with "A. Reynaud". By now you know who that was.
This info was furnished by "Observers" who were NOT PAID TO TESTIFY .

[RJNorton]

John, I have come around to the belief that John Surratt was probably in Elmira on April 14th, but I don't feel I can say it with 100% validity. This is quite a story the barber told about cutting John Surratt's hair in Washington on April 14th. Is there definitive evidence he was paid off to create such detailed testimony?

[loetar44]

It’s still my feeling that John Surratt was in Elmira, but I’m more and more confused. At the trial eight witnesses swear positively to seeing Surratt, and five others think they did. Okay, each saw him at a different place and you can (if you want) easily discount the testimony of some of them. But have all these witnesses lied ? It is possible, but not probable. Are all these witnesses mistaken? It too, is possible, but also not probable. And why to believe that witnesses for the prosecution were bribed? In that case, you also can say that the witnesses for the defence were bribed. You also can say that the prosecution used perjured testimony to show Surratt’s presence in DC on April 14. But why? I think there are more accounts saying that Surratt was in DC on April 14. I think of the brothers Queen who said they saw Surratt at or near Herold’s house on April 14. And Atzerodt said one day before he was hanged that Surratt was in DC. Why should he have lied one day before his death?

[L Verge]

I'm sticking with John Stanton on this. John was of more use to the Confederacy at that point than sticking around to assist an erratic Booth. I also feel that those who testified at his trial were doing so TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT. All sorts of altered, confused, and just plain mistaken information can flit through a man's brain in that period of time - thus creating untrustworthy testimony.

[SSlater]

(03-07-2017 01:07 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I'm sticking with John Stanton on this. John was of more use to the Confederacy at that point than sticking around to assist an erratic Booth. I also feel that those who testified at his trial were doing so TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT. All sorts of altered, confused, and just plain mistaken information can flit through a man's brain in that period of time - thus creating untrustworthy testimony.

Thank You for your "support". I feel that there is more Believable testimony going in his favor.
I have an Elmira newspaper from April 15 1865 that describes his presence in Elmira. That statement is trash until I can show you, but I don't know where it is - it's in storage. But---- you are going to own it some day. If I ever get around to "housecleaning" that mess.

[loetar44]

(03-07-2017 01:07 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I'm sticking with John Stanton on this. John was of more use to the Confederacy at that point than sticking around to assist an erratic Booth. I also feel that those who testified at his trial were doing so TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT. All sorts of altered, confused, and just plain mistaken information can flit through a man's brain in that period of time - thus creating untrustworthy testimony.

Laurie, the brothers Queen (Andrew & Benjamin) hunted with Herold. Benjamin said to detective Charles Rosch on 25 April 1865 (ten days after the fact and fresh in his memory) that he saw Surratt on 14 April on horseback coming from Herold’s house going downtown. Atzerodt said on July 6 (almost 3 months after the fact and the day before his execution) that he had seen Surratt on April 14 and that he (Surratt) was then staying at the Herndon House. Also he said that Booth told him that Surratt was with him (Booth) in Ford's Theatre.... Don't get me wrong, it's still my believe that Surratt was indeed in Elmira, however .... ????

[RJNorton]

(03-07-2017 05:09 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Atzerodt said on July 6 (almost 3 months after the fact and the day before his execution) that he had seen Surratt on April 14 and that he (Surratt) was then staying at the Herndon House. Also he said that Booth told him that Surratt was with him (Booth) in Ford's Theatre

Kees, I recall where Atzerodt claimed Booth said (to Atzerodt) that he had seen Surratt in Washington on the 14th, and that Surratt was going to help in the box at Ford's. However, I do not recall Atzerodt himself saying he had seen Surratt on the 14th in Washington. Could you possibly post what you found regarding what Atzerodt said? Many thanks.

[L Verge]

Both Andrew and Benjamin Queen gave statements on April 27th, 1865. Andrew's first paragraph relates only to Herold [not Surratt] running with someone matching Powell's description to catch a streetcar. In the second paragraph, Andrew says that he "knew Surratt" and "saw him last about six months ago."

Benjamin talks mainly about Herold and Atzerodt in his statement. About Surratt, he says "I have not seen Surratt since last summer a year ago, I stopped in his place [referring to Surratt Tavern] and got a drink of whiskey, except two weeks ago at church..."

Two weeks ago would put Surratt in church on April 15, if Ben is correct. I doubt seriously that John would be in any church in DC on the day after the assassination...

NOTE that both of the Queens lived close to Herold's home outside the Navy Yard gates. Ben's reference to summer a year ago would mean the summer of 1864 - before the Surratts moved into Washington.

[loetar44]

(03-07-2017 05:56 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 05:09 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Atzerodt said on July 6 (almost 3 months after the fact and the day before his execution) that he had seen Surratt on April 14 and that he (Surratt) was then staying at the Herndon House. Also he said that Booth told him that Surratt was with him (Booth) in Ford's Theatre

Kees, I recall where Atzerodt claimed Booth said (to Atzerodt) that he had seen Surratt in Washington on the 14th, and that Surratt was going to help in the box at Ford's. However, I do not recall Atzerodt himself saying he had seen Surratt on the 14th in Washington. Could you possibly post what you found regarding what Atzerodt said? Many thanks.

Roger,
I recall it was Weichmann who was the first who wrote about John Surratt in the Herndon House on April 14, 1865. I am not in the possession of Weichmann’s “A True History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the Conspiracy of 1865”, but once (long ago) read it. According my notes it was on page 386.

Further, it was you, who supported the fact that Surratt was in DC on April 14, 1865
See: http://lincoln-assassination.com/bboard/...668.0;wap2
In which you wrote:
“Atzerodt said a lot of things that have been debated/questioned on this board. In his statement of July 6, 1865, he wrote:

"Booth told me that Surratt was in the Herndon House on the night of the murder, the 14th of April, we were not all together at the Herndon House. Booth told me that Surratt was to help at the box, that he expected others in the box. I saw Surratt a few moments ago."

The vast majority of posters here feel Surratt was in Elmira. If true, then that's yet another Booth-Atzerodt conversation that is problematic. “

---

(03-07-2017 07:56 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Both Andrew and Benjamin Queen gave statements on April 27th, 1865. Andrew's first paragraph relates only to Herold [not Surratt] running with someone matching Powell's description to catch a streetcar. In the second paragraph, Andrew says that he "knew Surratt" and "saw him last about six months ago."

Benjamin talks mainly about Herold and Atzerodt in his statement. About Surratt, he says "I have not seen Surratt since last summer a year ago, I stopped in his place [referring to Surratt Tavern] and got a drink of whiskey, except two weeks ago at church..."

Two weeks ago would put Surratt in church on April 15, if Ben is correct. I doubt seriously that John would be in any church in DC on the day after the assassination...

NOTE that both of the Queens lived close to Herold's home outside the Navy Yard gates. Ben's reference to summer a year ago would mean the summer of 1864 - before the Surratts moved into Washington.

Laurie,
Thank you so much for your remarks! I fully agree with you! Both Andrew and Benjamin Queen did NOT see John Surratt on April 14 in Washington DC.

Andrew and Benjamin, they both gave their official statements on April 27th, 1865. I re-read the full statements on page 1072/1073 of William C. Edwards and Edward Steers Jr. “The Lincoln Assassination / The Evidence”. You are right, Andrew said that he "knew Surratt" and "saw him last about six months ago."

You are also right about Benjamin. He said (2nd paragraph, p. 1073):
“I last saw him the afternoon of the murder between four and five o’clock. He was mounted on a roan horse. Atzerodt was with him on a bay horse. Herold was going fast ahead and Atzerodt loping his horse after him. I called after him but he did not stop. I have not seen Surratt since last summer a year ago, etc…”

Both men on horseback were of course Herold and Atzerodt. However, John Fazio wrote in his “Decapitating the Union” on p. 46: “In a report prepared by the military detective Charles H. Rosch, dated Washington , April 25, 1865, he said that B.F. Queen said he saw Herold with SURRATT on horseback, about 4:30 p.m. on April 14, 1865, coming from the vicinity of Herold’s house and going towards the city.”. He gave as his reference Edwards and Steers.

Another date (April 27 vs. April 25) and other men on horseback (Herold & Atzerodt vs. Herold & Surratt). I hope John will join to give his comments.

[RJNorton]

Kees, as far as I can tell, Atzerodt does not say he saw Surratt in Washington on April 14 in his July 6, 1865, statement (the one in Weichmann's book). He says that Booth told him that he (Booth) saw Surratt; he does not say he (Atzerodt) saw Surratt. Nevertheless, I find this curious. Why would Booth say this?

It seems to me there are at least four possibilities regarding what Atzerodt wrote that night: (1) Surratt really was in DC; (2) Booth was lying; (3) Atzerodt was lying; (4) Atzerodt misheard what Booth told him.

[Gene C]

Is it feasible to think that many people held John Surratt somewhat responsible for Mary's imprisonment and death sentence, as he seemed to show more concern for his own survival that that of his mother? Knowing that he was involved with Booth, his involvement as a confederate courier, Booth's visits to the boarding house the day of the assassination, cast a large and dark shadow on his mother.

Claims that John was seen in Washington on the day of the assassination ties him closer to Booth and his plot. Convinced of his guilt and involvement in Lincoln's assassination, whether it is true or not that John was in Washington, it maybe the only act of retribution Atzerodt (and others) can do to make things more difficult for John, and to ensure he is punished for the perceived greater sin of deserting his mother in her time of peril.

[loetar44]

(03-08-2017 10:42 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Kees, as far as I can tell, Atzerodt does not say he saw Surratt in Washington on April 14 in his July 6, 1865, statement (the one in Weichmann's book). He says that Booth told him that he (Booth) saw Surratt; he does not say he (Atzerodt) saw Surratt. Nevertheless, I find this curious. Why would Booth say this?

It seems to me there are at least four possibilities regarding what Atzerodt wrote that night: (1) Surratt really was in DC; (2) Booth was lying; (3) Atzerodt was lying; (4) Atzerodt misheard what Booth told him.

The way I (wrongly) interpreted the text:

"Booth told ME (= Atzerodt) that Surratt was in the Herndon House on the night of the murder, the 14th of April, we were not all together at the Herndon House. Booth told ME (= Atzerodt) that Surratt was to help at the box, that he expected others in the box. I (= Atzerodt, if it was Booth he should have written / said "He") saw Surratt a few moments ago ."

[RJNorton]

(03-08-2017 11:02 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Is it feasible to think that many people held John Surratt somewhat responsible for Mary's imprisonment and death sentence, as he seemed to show more concern for his own survival that that of his mother? Knowing that he was involved with Booth, his involvement as a confederate courier, Booth's visits to the boarding house the day of the assassination, cast a large and dark shadow on his mother.

Claims that John was seen in Washington on the day of the assassination ties him closer to Booth and his plot. Convinced of his guilt and involvement in Lincoln's assassination, whether it is true or not that John was in Washington, it maybe the only act of retribution Atzerodt (and others) can do to make things more difficult for John, and to ensure he is punished for the perceived greater sin of deserting his mother in her time of peril.

Gene, IMO what you say makes sense. Between 11:00 A.M. and noon on July 6th Atzerodt found out he was sentenced to be hanged. Later on July 6th he wrote his statement. He begins by writing that he had not seen Surratt "for about eight days before the murder. Booth told me a few days before the murder that he was in Washington." Later Atzerodt writes that Booth reported seeing Surratt in Washington on the day of the murder. It may have been his (Atzerodt's) way of attempting to make things more difficult for Surratt (as you say). Maybe Atzerodt purposely included some things Booth did not really say. Certainly a possibility IMO.