May 30, 1865 - Testimony of Marcellus Gardiner about Dr. Samuel Mudd
MARCELLUS GARDINER, a witness called for the accused, Samuel A. Mudd, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By MR. EWING:
Q. State whether you known the prisoner, Samuel A. Mudd.
A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. State whether or not he has ever said any thing to you, and if so, when, about offering his land for sale.
A. I have heard him on several occasions within the last two years state that he wanted to sell out.
Q. Were you at church on the Sunday after the assassination?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What church?
A. The church in the neighborhood called Reeve’s Church.
Q. How far from Bryantown?
A. Five or six miles, I think.
Q. That was on Easter Sunday?
A. Yes, sir; the Sunday after the assassination.
Q. Will you state whether the fact of the assassination of the President was then known?
A. Yes, sir: I think it was generally known.
Q. And talked of after church?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state whether or not the name of the assassin was generally understood?
A. No, sir; I think not. My impression is that it was not.
Q. Will you state whether you saw Dr. Mudd there?
A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q. State whether you heard Dr. Mudd say any thing as to how he regarded the act of assassination.
ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE BINGHAM.
That I object to. That is the old question again, of introducing Dr. Mudd’s declarations.
I have brought that before the Court again for the purpose of doing what I failed to do yesterday,—calling the attention of the Court specially to the character of the declarations that I expect to prove.
ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE BURNETT.
I believe it is the rule of all military courts, when stating what you expect to prove, that the witness himself should withdraw, so that he may not be instructed by those remarks.
The witness retired from the stand and the court-room.
I expect simply to prove that Dr. Mudd spoke of the assassination as an atrocious and revolting crime, and a terrible calamity to the country; that he spoke of it generally among his neighbors at church in that way. I again call the attention of the Court to the principle upon which I claim that it is applicable; and that is, that Dr. Mudd is charged with concealment of the fact of those men having been there,—a concealment extending through Sunday,—and that his declarations showing his feeling with reference to the crime during the time that they allege him to have been acting as accessory to it are admissible.
The COMMISSION sustained the objection of the Judge Advocate.