Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-11-24


ty, on the Ohio river, and captured from store
room which had been used for a hospital the fol-
lowing property. owned by the State, and which
was intended for the defense OF the border: 81
guns. 100 swords. and 100 pistols, designed for
cavalry service, They also took from the hos
pital occupied by invalid soldiers few pieces
Of ordnance. a chest of medicine, and some
commissary supplies. The only private property
taken was thee horses, one of which has since
been returned. ANDREW ]. HUsroN was arrested
and indicted as an aecOmplce Of the band. and
his trial for high treason came off in the Circuit
Court of the United States for this district last
week. occupying three days, Judge SwArSE
presiding The facts elected in the trial of the
case are, in substance, as follows:
HusroS was in the employ of one McALLIs
TER as overseer of the farm of the latter in Ken
lucky, about three miles from Newburg. The
family of HusroS resided at Newburg. and it
bis habit to go home every Saturday afternoon
and return to his work on Monday morning. On
the day before the raid Mrs. HUsroS requested
the ferryman to send word to her husband, by the
first person that went past McALLIsrER's farm,
that his family sick and needed his immediate
attention. He received the message on Friday
morning and Immediately started home. When
be got to the river bank, on the Kentucky side,
all of Johuson's men had crossed over. They
impressed two ferry boats into their service, and
twenty-five crossed in one and FIVE in a skif.
One boat was on the Kentucky and one on the
Indiana side. The ferryman was on the Indiana
side when HUsToS reached the river; JOHNSON
had declared martial law in the town; pckets
we're placed on duty; the ferryman was held
prisoner by two guards detailed for the purpose,
and he was compelled to ferry over two loads of
the property captured.
When the ferry-boat reached the Kentucky
shore, il landed about four hundred yards below
the regular landing. HUsroS ssked to get on to
cross. He was directed by the ferryman to 81
to the landing, and when about to step on the
boat the rebel guard asked who he was and his
business. Senior MEFFoRD told the guard che
was all right" that he had a sick family in New
burg. and he was then permitted to 60 on board.
JOHNSON had proclaimed that he did not intend
to disturb private property private citizens, but
that he was after Government stores and arms.
When the boat landed at Newburg, the guard
took BRowSLEE. the ferryman, with HUsroS. to
JOHNSON, who was at the hospital paroling pris-
oners, and he was released. HUsroS walked
with the picket guard to their station, when he
was permitted to pass the guarded line towards
his home. He visited his family. Mrs. LANCE,
who was proven by four or FIVE witnesses to be
common prostitute. and by one that she not
of sane mind, testified that she heard HUsToS
say on his way home with the guard. that ''there
were as good ones there as ever was rode"
without indicating in any possible shape or seeing
him accompany them to the livery stable from
whence the three horses were taken, what horses
he alluded to, or where they were.
Another witness, HUxFoRD, testified that he
saw HUsroS carrying three four muskets to-
wards the river, passing by his tin shop. Quite
a number of guerrillas were also carrying mus
kets at the same time. He identified HUsroS
by his wearing black felt hat, but he conld not
describe his appearance in any other respect
Another witness swore that HUsroN on that day
had worn palm leaf hat. He saw him leave
Mr.. ALLIsTERs farm with it on, and saw him
with il on the afternoon Of the same day the
raid occurred. HUxFoRD was evidently excited
when giving his testimony. there was no evil
dence to show that HUsroS was present when
the muskets and the horses were taken by JOHN
SONS men. LANcoTT, another witness, who
on the Kentucky eide when HUsroS reached the
river. testified that HUsroS. upon being asked
what he was at the river for. said that he came
down to see the fun" On the boat crossing the
river, it appeared in the testimony that HUsroS
remarked it was pretty home guard to let
twenty seven men capture town of a thousand
inhabitants. Subsequently he proposed to be
one of ten men to capture the guerrilas. This
latter remark made after the killing of
MEFFoRD and CARNEY, who were undoubtedly
accomplices of the band.
One of the prosecuting witnesses. ROBERT
GRAHAM, swore in the most positive terms, to his
knowledge that HUsroN a good loyal citizen.
although he had also stated that HUsToS had told
crowd of citizens in Newburg that there were
six cannon on the opposite side of the river, and
that the guerrillas would shell the town if they
made any further resistance. These are the
main points of the evidence in the case.
Judge SwAYNE charged that the jury must ac-
cept one side OF the testimony. and reject the
other. There were three counts in the indict-
ment. In referring to that clause of the consti-
tuition which says mo person shall be convicted
of treason, unless on the testimony of two wit
nesses to the same overt act" the Judge placed
the following construction upon it: In his opin.
ion it did not require the evidence of two wit
nesses to prove the charge in each count, but it
was sufficient to convict if the first or second
count was proven by one witness, and third or
fourth by another. 1t was enough that the in
dictment was maintained as a whole on the testi-
mony of two Witnesses, without reference to each
count.
Judge SwAYSE has the reputation of being
great lawyer-a constitutional lawyer, and he
may be right in this construction of the constitu-
ton. IL his opinion is correctly reported. Let us
test il by common sense. The prisoner is charged
in one Of the counts Of the indictment with an
"overt act " of treason. This is sustained by
only one witness Is it possible that this can be
conviction within the meaning of the constitu
ton Will the Judge of the Supreme Court of
the United States venture such an opinion We
are unwilling to believe that Judge SwAYSE. oc-
cupying the high position that he does, will ieop
ardize his position as a citizen, as lawyer, as
Judge, by such an opinion. If so. all the guar
antees Of the constitution TO the citizen are not