The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1864-11-16
NAscHr1ocnss, Nov. 9Th, 1861

HAscHr>ocnss, Nov. 9Th, 1864.
Your letter Of the 29th was received thl
day before yesterday, and would haze been
answered more promptly, but for q severe
headache. I shall reply to some portions
Of it. i exclude from this, as from my pre-
vious letter, any criticism on or rxjoinder u
your IiHWs a. to the oossoaAnass 81 ~ oS;0
he and decree IN the Mckee case, rs also
III comment on what you think proper t.
regard rs an attack on the military author.
tiles. desire, however, to correct an error
into which you have fallen. You say, !" to
use the language of your written opinion, i,
has discussed matters mot necessary for the
scented for soiuti6n,'" and in another place
yoa observe that "you state in your. argu
u,ent that much that you will eav lis not ne.
cessary for the dscision of the questions pre-.
scented for solution" A reference to the
opinion Ia copy of which 1 received u few
days sipce,) will shew that what said was
that "the magnitude Of the principles in.
volved' &C., h1s "induced me to put on re-
cord full and detailed account Of the casl
from The beginning, aithc- lis is not ne
cessary for the decision y: III. estions i'm
mediatciy presented for 5. :Vn." shall
not stop to inquire whether IN judicial opin.
lens it is unusual TO go into more complete
history Of the case, than is essential for the
rendition of 4 judgment.
You appear to think that was not aware
that the reviewing officer, or his successor
was "the person to act on the sentence of
the Court Martial" You are mistaken. A
very recent statute FEB. II, 1864 had i'm.
pressed this ON my memory. 1t was the
knowledge Of the law on the subject that
So
drawn that the day for the execution had
been designated in an order from Depart
ment Headquarters, and there was some
speculation by others, - we'll as myself, as
to the embarrassment to which such an order
might subject you-an embarrassment, bS
the way, on which you animadvert ia your
letter. Your letter Of the 2lst October
gave me the opportunity Of relieving Gen.
Smith from the responsibility of having is
sued this order. think that neither Of rs
will be able to convince the other of the
correctness or incdrrectness of the inference
drew from your communication Of Sep
TENDER 9Th. Your letter before me affords
very ample materials for farther discussion
of that question but ~ do noE Ysrceive
any xoa that ean eoaee frose u. ahsqa
you WI agree With me in the prcpxiery 9.
49, sssS SOAsSSs AZ o1ysut5 snOt 1 CSECu HI
assuming the date Of your letter to Gen
Smith to be between the LIST and 9th
1t appears that you were not in command
until the 18th. Having NO copy of my
opinion nor any memoranda from which to
refresh my memory, it is not to be wondered
at that made this mistake of date il y mat.
ter wholly immaterinl. This mistake oil
mine in letter to you (not In the opipion)
arose in this way: You informed me thai
/" having learned the purpose" Of Mckee tc
apply for the writ OF Habsas Corpus, you
wrote the letter which Gen. Smith "misap
pretending" directed you not to delay the
execution. Now VI the writ was issued
about the 9Th THAT is the alias writ, the
original was in July0 it appeared to me
that as at the time you wrote to Gen. S
you had only learned the purpose" of Nc
kee TO apply for the writ, your letter te
Cen. s. must have been written before thu
9Th, the date Of the issuance of the writ
On the 18th, when you took command, the
writ had been outstanding hearty two weeks
In other words. when you wrote 70 Gen. 8