The Norfolk post. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1865-1866, 1865-07-24

Mace on these topics. / asked him in q
! friendly and kindly way to promise me
| that he would desist from talking about
| this matter. Mr.. Walters convictions
as to the innocence of the prisoner, OF
| the use of any proper efforts, believing
her to be inAocent, to avert her execu-
| ton, were not made matters of objection
1t was to the intlammatory character
and effect OF his observations at this pc
Rod, when the public mind was agita.
ted, that my attention was directed
Unnecessary idle and angry discussions
ana harangues couldnot butbe mischiev-
Gus just at this moment, and since ii
appeared that Mr.. Walter could not APP
proach the subject with discretion, it was
better he should let it alone.
This was confidential conversation
between myself and Mr.. Walter; as has
been seen, the visit was not at all Off
ciai, but entirely that of private indi,
vidual. My motives were laudable: they
were to restrain imprudent and mis-
chievous discussions, and to insure the
use of the pass to be given in the faith in
tended when it Unassigned, and then TO
make my assurance good. The visit was
not suggested by the Secretary of War,
or even known to him until the present
time.
On this point, after what | had said, l
do not see how Mr.. Walter could have
| understood me as prompted by instruc-
lions in my conversation.
In replying to me, the Rev. Mr.. wal
| ter was very violent and generally de-
mandatory. The range of his conyersa-
ton was quite wide. He harangued
upon the Administration and the rebel
lion, and dwelt with bitterness on what
he called military tyranny, &c. He said
probably all he is represented in the 4th
paragraph ofthe article in question as
having said, and very much more that
prudent priest, aloyal citizen, or man
of common sense would not have said.
During all this time l was endeavor-
ing TO counsel moderation, remonstra-
ting against his expressions, and enjoin-
ing prudence | do not know that |
sonpht to patronize the Rev. Mr.. Walter
at all. and the phrases which allude to
this and the indignant rejoinder of Faith
err w. do not bring to my mind the re-
collection of the scene described.
/ did not tell Father Walter that he
should not have pass if he did not pro-
mise to say nothing of Mrs. Surratt's in
nocence. Annoyed by what he had said
I was about, however, to leave the room,
and to defer giving him the pass, re-
marking, II. will send you word as to
the pass in two hours; )" when he said,
II promise"
INTENDED within two hours to see the
Secretary of War, andto say to him that
/ was convinced after what had taken
pace, that Father Walter was not in the
proper disposition and frame of mind to
be suitable religious attendant upon
the prisoner, and that under the circum-
stances the services of another priest
should be procured for her instead, when
Mr.. Walter said that he promised. Sat
isfied that he had determined to be gov
erned by the considerations of prudence
had suggested, and believing that he
would perform what he had undertaken
l gave him the pass. Nor did I, when
designed to withdraw from Father w.
without giving him the pass, by any
means intend that this act should have
the effect to deprive the prisoner of the
services Of the clergy. My view, on the
contrary, was that some other priest
should 20. In fact, another priest did
go besides Mr.. Walter.
1t has been my fortune to be the means
of sending the clergy to attend many
UblS wal III IlCtu vi UliCll StI WIVES
and never threw straw in the way Of
any clergyman, of any faith, visiting 6
penitent, loyal or disloyal, living or dy
| ing, when his services were called for
| I could not see or know of person o
my own creed dying without giving an.
assistance in my power to secure the at
| tendance of q priest. With regard t.
the denials of passes to Mr.. Walter t,
visit the prisoner when ill, referred t.
in the last paragraph of the article il
| question, Father w. stated to my mes
| senger that he had been requested b,
| Mrs. Surratt, shortly after she was al
rested, and since, to visit her, but tina
he had refused to do so, not wishing t,
have his "name connected with it unit
the trial was over"
/ did not seek to NEEDLE with Mr.
| Walters convictions as to the innocence
| of Mrs Surratt, nor did I attempt to re
strain him from the use of any prope
efforts to bring his convictions to motto
| in quarters where his representation
might be of avail So far from this, al
hour or two after the conversation refer
red to, when he called upon me at tn,
| War Department and told me that h,
could not get admittance, with thu
daughter of the prisoner, to the EXecu
! tive Mansion, and asked for my assist
| ance, gave him q card to the Acting
Military Secretary of the President, ask,
ing that gentleman to see the Rev. Mr.
W., trusting this means would assist
him in getting his case before the Exc
cutive.
In conclusion, I distinctly aver that
the Secretary of War expressly and read
lily assented to the visit of Catholic
clergy man to Mrs. Surratt. He made no
condition as to any conviction of the
clergyman as to the guilt or innocence
of the prisoner, or to anything he might
say on the subject.
JAS. A. HARDIE,
Inspector General, and Bvt. Brig. Gen.
q. S. A.