Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-08-05
Tf,orrespondence Ohio Statesman1

[Correspondence Ohio Statesman.l
The Cambridge Military COmmis-
sion Uni ustifiable and NufIian-
Iy Attack by the Judge Advo-
cate, ON the Character of n Wit
ness.
CAMBRIDGE, o., Aug. l, 1866.
EDITORS STATEsMAN:-The military farce
is still being enacted in this place, and the
eyes of one community, at least, are being
gradually opened to the beauties of militia
nv usurpations. Farciule and uDjustitiable
as the whole proceedings have been, from
the very organization of this Commission,
they needed but the rufflanly and con-
temptible scene which was enacted on the.
afternoon of Tuesday, the 25th Instant to-
anathematize its actors, and consign their
names to prominent place, among those
of others, who the last four years have Civ
en- a prominent position upon the scroll OF
inJdmy. 9 'igur tHel
On Monday, the oath of last month, the
defense placed upon the witness stand
highly respectable and intelligent young
lady--Miss Mollie S. Hays, late of the St.
Columbia Catholic School, at Zanesville.--
About fifteen minutes were given to her
examination in chief, when the fact was
elected that she recognized the prisoners
as being two men whom she had seen
in Florence, Pennsylvania, on the
afternoon of the third of March last, and
was enabled to fix the date to certainty,
by an entry made in her diary at the time,
and also by having In her possession two
envelopes, both of which bore the evidence
of having been mailed at that place, and at
the time referred too. The importance of
this testimony willbe observed, when it Is
remembered that this is the day the prose-
cution charge the prisoners with being in
this place, and the very day, that Mrs. Cook
testifies the prisoner Oliver came to her
house. The Judge Advocate spent an en-
tire day and halt in the cross examination
of this witness, and having signally failed,
even in the smallest extent, to impeach her
testimony, his blind rage knew no bounds,
and he commenced a low and ruffianly at
tack upon her character.
The counsel for the defense repeatedly
objected to the indecent and unjustitiable
treatment to which the witness was being
exposed, and called upon the court Tor their
protection in her behalf; but they absolute
ly refused to interfere, although in former
instance, they had refused to allow the
counsel for the defense, in the cross-eXami-
nation OF witness whose immoral charac-
ter was well-known, TO ask her any ques-
tions, the answers to Which would tend in
the least to place her in her true position
before the Commission. But the fact that
this lady was an orphan, and without any
one to protect her from his cowardly in |
suits, was knowledge sufficient to induce |
the Judge Advocate to givevent to the hate |
aud rage engendered by beingso completely |
bat1ed at every point; and after failing in |
every dirty and unproiessional trick, known |
to the lowest class OF pettifogging lawyers, |
to induce the witness to vary from former |
he so far forgot every SENSE of
1ecency as pursue course OF examination
so indecent in its character as to compel
of ladies present to leave the hall,
their cheeks sutfused with the blush of
shame. The most base and insulting ques-
tions which hate and malice could invent,
were propounded to the witness, and that,
too, in such manner as to at once stamp
the questioner as an adept in the disreput-
able business, which he was laborng so hard |
to fix upon the character of the witness. |
The course which was pursued in this in
stance has been strongly condemned by |
both friends and foes. and this feeling grows |
stronger, as each passing day brings new |
proofs of the high moral and intellectual |
qualities of her whom he has so basely at
tempted to injure, while as for himself, his |
action but adds another black |
spot to the many which even now so COM
pletely distigures the escutcheon of his past |
history. OCCASIONAL.