Abraham Lincoln - American Memory

N
82
says he went to Gardner's party ; second, he went to Giesboro,
then to Washington. She does not know in what month he was
away, the second time, all night. She only knows where he went,
from what he and his wife said, which is not evidence; but she does
testify that when he left home and was absent over night, the second
time, it was about two or three weeks after she came to his house,
which w T ould, if it were three weeks, make it just about the 15th of
January, 1865; because she swears she came to his house on the first
Monday after Christmas last, which was the 26th day of December;
so that the 15th of January would be three weeks, less one day, from
that time; and it might have been a week earlier according to her
testimony, as, also, it might have been a week earlier, or more, by
Weichmann's testimony, for he is not positive as to the time. What
I have said of the register of the Pennsylvania House, the headquar-
ters of Mudd and Atzerodt, I need not here repeat. That reccrd
proves nothing, save that Dr. Mudd was there on the 23d of Decem-
ber, which, as we have seen, is a fact, along with others, to show
that the meeting at the National then took place. I have also called
the attention of"the court to the fact that if Mudd was at that house
again in January, and did not register his name, that fact proves
nothing; or, if he did, the register only proves that he registered
falsely; either of which facts might have happened without the
knowledge of the witness called by the accused from that house, who
does not know Samuel A. Mudd personally.
The testimony of Henry L. Mudd, his brother, in support of this
alibi, is, that the prisoner was in Washington on the 23d of March,
and on the 1 Oth of April, four days before the murder ! But he does
not account for the absent night in January, about which Betty
Washington testifies. Thomas Davis was called for the same pur-
pose, but stated that he was himself absent one night in January,
alter the 9th of that month, and he could not say whether Mudd was
there on that night or not. He does testify to Mudd's absence over
night three times, and fixes one occasion on the night of the 26th of
January. In consequence of his own absence one night in January,
this witness cannot account for the absence of Mudd on the night
referred to by Betty Washington.
This matter is entitled to no further attention. It can satisfy no
one, and the burden of proof is upon the prisoner to prove that he
was not in Washington in January last. How can such testimony
convince any rational man that Mudd was not here in January, against
the evidence of an unimpeached witness, who swears that Samuel A.