Is there a word on record of conversation between Booth and Mrs. Surratt?  That they did converse together, we know; but if anything treasonable had passed between them, would not the quick ears of Weichmann have caught it, and would not he have recited it to this court?

When Weichmann went, on Tuesday, the eleventh of April, to get Booth’s buggy, he was not asked by Mrs. Surratt to get ten dollars.  It was proffered by Booth, according to Weichmann, and he took it.  If Mrs. Surratt ever got money from Booth she paid it back to him.  It is not her character to be in anyone’s debt.

There was no intimacy with Booth, as Mrs. Surratt has proved, but only common acquaintance, and such as would warrant only occasional calls on Booth’s part, and only intimacy would have excused Mrs. Surratt to herself in accepting such a favor, had it been made known to her.  Moreover, Miss Surratt has attested to remarks of her brother, which prove that intimacy of Booth with his sister and mother were not considered desirable by him.

The preceding facts are proven by statements made by Weichmann during his first examination.  But, as though the commission had not sufficiently exposed the character of one of its chief witnesses in the role of grand conspirator, Weichmann is recalled and further attests to the genuineness of the following telegram: 

NEW YORK, March 23d, 1865.—­To WEICHMANN, Esq., 541 H St.—­Tell John telegraph number and street at once. [Signed] J. BOOTH.

What additional proof of confidential relations between Weichmann and Booth could the court desire?  If there was a conspiracy planned and maintained among the persons named in the indictment, Weichmann must have had entire knowledge of the same, else he had not been admitted to that degree of knowledge to which he testifies; and in such case, and in the alleged case of Mrs. Surratt’s complicity, Weichmann must have known the same by circumstances strong enough to exclude doubt, and in comparison with which all present facts of accusation would sink into insignificance.

We proceed to the notice and review of the second chief witness of the prosecution against Mrs. Surratt, John M. Lloyd.  He testifies to the fact of a meeting with Mrs. Surratt at Uniontown on the eleventh of April, 1865, and to a conversation having occurred between Mrs. Surratt and himself in regard to which he states:  “I am quite positive she asked me about the ‘shooting irons’; I am quite positive about that, but not altogether positive.  I think she named shooting irons, or something to call my attention to those things, for I had almost forgotten about their being there.”  Question.—­ “Was her question to you first, whether they were there, or what was it?” Answer.—­“Really, I cannot recollect the first question she put to me—­I could not do it to save my life.”  The question was asked Lloyd, During this conversation, was the word ‘carbine’ mentioned?  He answered,