New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-06-01

editors Yourg and Stockton disclose the fact that Oh,
accused furnished the article with the understanding
that ii not to be published until the attack wa
made
The gi5t Of /. is this: That the Northern papers on
Monday and Tuesday the 10Th and 10Th published ac
counts of the expedition, which repnblished by
the Richmond papers OF the Thursday following dec
21). which Immediately preceded the att1ck Of our
forces. These facts, adds AIr. Fox be easily vei
fed 10y the flies of the Richmond papers. No iles OF
the Richmond papers readily accessible TO the unlm
tied means and pow Of Government have been pro-
duced. but isd the files been produced ANA actually
verified MI. lOAs statement, the fact proved would
have fallen fr short Establishing tie case Of the Gov
ernmut.
The ohare that the accused caused the publication OF
the cont band Information set 0ri III The specification
cannd be sustained by proof Of the publication Of other
information IN Richmond. derived from sources other
tlan he accused.
III. Redmond Examiner Of "wednesday Dec 81, 1864
published letter credited in this article tscfto "a the
last number OF Tie baltimore American" giving the
iues details the names and number Of the vessels, the
number o. ironcladS and the number of guns each car
rict and concluding the article with the statement that
Official dispatch, dated on Tuesday, the 20h at 10
a m.. at Wilmington had been received. announcing
tine arrival OF the "oLemy's" feet off Wilmington on
the night Of tie preceding Monday the 10th OF De-
cembr.
On Thursday. December -, TIL, Richmond Enquire,
published aIcie noticing an official dispatch from
Gen. Bragg, OF the day previous. that the fleet had ap
peared of New Inlet.
The Court will therefore perceive thet. prior TO the
time OF alleged publication in the Richmond papers OF
the article Of the accused the Richmond papers had
derived the intelligence from THE Baltimore American.
But for the publication in The Baltimore american. the
prosecution have cOncusiyely established, by the mouth
OF its own witness Charles G. Fulton the editor OF the
paper that the accused was IN no wise responsible.
The remaining question OF The absence OF any ermi'
nal intent on the part of accused is an Idle inquiry
IT, however III, views Of the court should be adverse
30 the accused upon the first question: tie examination
Of the remaining two then becomes necessary, and
from their nature and The ultimate connection between
them il may be profitable 10 consider them together
The accused is charged witt an act the extreme pun
shment for which is death He is charged with a
crime And II is cardinal doctrine OF criminal law
formed In natural Justice that il is the intention with
which an act was done that constitutes its crminay.
The intent and the must both 10 constitute
the crime" Greenleaf on Evidence, vol. sec. Is.
Now the accused does not for moment dispute the
novel proposition of law referred 10 By the learned
Judge Advocate. and stated well by the Judge Ad-
yocate-Gereral in the opinion which the Court has
seen that man IA presumed o intend Tie national ana
probable consequences Of his deliberate acts still II Is
necessary order that this doctrine should be Of prac
teal value a. the prosecution 20 show
LIST. That the consequences themselves existed.
Cd. That they were national and probable and there
fore mus have been contemplated by the accused in the
exercise OF q reasonable foresight.
81. That tho evidence offered on either side does not
retort and sweep away their mere legal presumption.
The first of these propositions Is disposed OF II the
views suggested ON the consideration Of the question a'
10 the publication and Transmission Of the intelligence
In question correct.
In order TO determine the remaining two PROPOSE.
ton- the court will take general view Of the case and
ihc evidence bearing upon til. question ana IN 80 u"ik
the accused respectfully submits that the court cannot
fail TO conclude not only that there a complete alb
OF criminal intent but that the accused through
the iransaoon for which be has already suffered
much showed IA sensitive care Of the public interests.
and peculiar and faithful regard for his duty in regard
TO giving publicity TO the matter IN question.
Counsel then referred % the position Of accused and
his right 10 pursue his lawful and honorable calling rs
reporter; the reliance be placed the editors 10 whom
the matter furnishcd bis caution as 20 It's pubca
ton and the evidently good Intention which regulated
hi conduct throughout the entire proceedings.
Finally. the whole character aad conduct OF The
accused Of which the court has every evidence, utterly
disprove any wliul intent on h- part, or wanion or
careless and therefore cupabe Indifference TO the In
teTesis Of his country.
The accused refers. In - own defense. snply and
not In boasiiul spirit 10 the valued testimony 81 every
witness who has testified the subject irclgdng the
well known OF honorcd journalists. editor, and
spOndents which is most cordially aud strongly
given. Of bis loyalty a. man. and BIZ care ana
fidelity reporter and correspondent. and be cannot
deny himself the pleasure. In conclusion. 81 reminding
the Court that 10 their testimony Is nidod that Of Ad
mira Farragut and Captain Worden Who vouch for
bis general character for loyalty and patriotism. aud
informed the Court that not only by daily life and
conduct but by specific acts 81 military service 10 the
Government has he ,indca;ed his claim that he Is
good citizen.
Tie Court then adjourned 20 meet Monday at II
o'clock. when the Judge-Advocate will submit his
argument IN reply.