Abraham Lincoln - American Memory

84
Mr. Norton identifies the prisoner, and has no doubt that Samuel A.
Mudd is the man.
The Rev. Mr. Evans also swears that, after the 1st and before
the 4th day of March last, he is certain that within that time, and on
the 2d or 3d of March, he saw Dr. Mudd drive into Washington city.
The endeavor is made by the accused, in order to break down this
witness, by proving another alibi. The sister of the accused, Miss
Fanny Mudd, is called. She testifies that she saw the prisoner at
breakfast in her father's house, on the 2d of March, about 5 o' clock
in the morning, and not again until the 3d of March at noon. Mrs.
Emily Mudd swears substantially to the same statement. Betty
Washington, called for the accused, swears that he was at home all
day at work with her on the 2d of March, and took breakfast at home.
Frank Washington swears that Mudd was at home all day ; that he
saw him when he first came out in the morning about sunrise from
his own house, and knows that he was there all day with them.
Which is correct, the testimony of his sisters or the testimony of
his servants? The sisters say that he was at their father's house for
breakfast on the morning of the 2d of March ; the servants say he
was at home for breakfast with them on that day. If this testimony
is followed, it proves one alibi too much. It is impossible, in the
nature of things, that the testimony of all these four witnesses can
be true.
Seeing this weakness in the testimony brought to prove this second
alibi, the endeavor is next made to discredit Mr. Norton for truth j
and two witnesses, not more, are called, who testify that his reputa-
tion for truth has suffered by contested litigation between one of the
impeaching witnesses and others. Four witnesses are called, who
testify that Mr. Norton's reputation for truth is very good ; that he
is a man of high character for truth, and entitled to be believed
whether he speaks under the obligation of an oath or not. The late
Postmaster General, Hon. Horatio King, not only sustains Mr. Nor-
ton as a man of good reputation for truth, but expressly corroborates
his testimony, by stating that in March last, about the 4th of March,
Mr. Norton told him the same fact to which he swears here : that a
man came into his room under excitement, alarmed his sister, was
followed out by himself, and went down stairs instead of going up ;
and that Mr. Norton told him this before the assassination, and about
the time of the inauguration. What motive had Mr. Norton at that
time to fabricate this statement? It detracts nothing from his testi-
mony that he did not at that time mention the name of this man to