The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1864-11-16

Dey8 0UueS 0y 11uSAby q V0e
e;sil Cos5t.' II b not strangstls ] soeght !
70 relieve nyeH from the snaa,ns.,eut
md 70 avail mysen Of any oppostunity that
military superior il the decisiun & Tie civil
Court were favorable to the jurisdiction Of
he Court Martial, But hsnrd neither
rom you nor from General Sai2h. Not
this the prisoner NJ not exc.
cuied. REGARDED the civil anflosity col
The superior Of the two. aw1ieef IS ae-
lion and cbeyed j4s mandate. General
Smith fully approved my action. anA the
facts show that the order given By bin was
gives under % erroneous suppositieu tAat
no writ had been issued. BY limiting our
seton strictly 70 our duty think We have
avoided the erross into which the civil Court
has fallen, When, to use the Language Of your
written opinion II hes discussed motsers mot
necesaery for the decision Of the question,
Immediately presented for solution"
! am surprised that you should state 80
positively that the 6rst letter - which
allude Us having been written 10 General
Smith, was between, ny the LIST and 9Th
Of August" Fortunately / nsed not 20
further than your own previous ststeme nts
TO refute this supposition Cd yo~ part. II
appears feom your narrative OF The progress
OF the case, that the writ of Hsleas Corpus
when issued, about the 9Th Of August, was
served on General Walker. who vSs then in
command. You state that ut flat time
the trial vxs represented as only progress
sinr. You state that on the ,i6, General
Wsiker. vhe WIS atifI in commend reonest.
ed Won 10 make the writ returusbie In Alex.
apiri. and that YOU accor,iineiy msde Il
returnsble there on the 18th Il August
You state that Won were too II to attend
the trial The writ therefore died because
Won did not renew it, You also mention
the General Order of N,ior0en Walker.
whici, vas dated .Aug..f l,th. At Which
date he was necessarily. in command md
which approved the sentence OF The Court
Martial. 1t appesrs further from your mar.
ratiye that it wss aot until afiaeiha issu,
rance of SAts os1er. sd when ifvo1 reprH
septed TO you that the trial va ceuci1dsA
that the writ was revived BY -four tseeA
and converted into the new writ 20 which
allude. 1t was then for the Hr1 time adr
dreseed to me, who, subsequent to the 18th
OF August succeeded Gen. WaIker-aua
was made returnahle at Natchi,oghes. How
can you reconcile with your owl previous
history OF this case, this new dcdlctiou thst
1, ss the Commander Of the DArict, bad.
"between the LIST and 9Th Of Aagust,' be-
lOgC ASu $sA@ WIS SSbAskssSsCu - oGAuIC
bad assumed command. repOrteI 20 General
Smith the day which had been 6Ied for tne
execution! II you can 20 miscsoceive the
tenor Of your owp statements il b perhaps
unreasonable in me to expect yoV to draw
correct deductions from mine. The fact is
that ] did not assume command until Aug.
lSth. and the letter IN question wss written
on the 10Th Of the same mopth-Anl fiat
at tbe time ut which Won 20 p.,eit,Se,v inner
that wrote tie letter. I was aNn,Jlv in
Texas and knew nothing wha,eyrr AZ n.
case. The action Of General Suith viii
appear in . still clearer light, wbeu maize
q correction which / desire to maxi in re.
ference to my letter OF the 18th of A upust
Nv pt,v; Us communication wns vritten
from NV r-.~E LECTION of the statsane,ss con-
taipes; ia tb..t letter and at momeAt vhe,
II was not of ready access. A refeserce to
the letter book TODAY shows that IL ietter
OF the 18th simply reports the ofic. scf;on
of nv predecessor in the case, and - NOT
refer 70 the subject of the Hsbess Corpus.
NJ reference to the Habeos Corsns -
no, made until the 2eth ard II W Alto
eetLer unlikely that Geuersl Smith could
have received information of the isuapce
Of tn writ, before the instructions'to exc
cute the sentence ~ere given.
deeply regret that ! have upi6tutjop-
ally done yoa injustice in reference to the
annotation made 90 the record of the Court
Martial. l have this excuse for mr. error.
The record was LEFT with you. did not