The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-15
ALL w 8x0A ! xNxxAAs
SHARP Controversy Between Judge
Advocate Chapman and coun-
sci tor the Accused.
One Makes q Charge Of False.
hood, and the Other Proposes
to Settle "Outside.''
Threat Of the Court to Expel
Mr.. Baker.
I Oil Finally Poured on the TrOnbled Waters,
and Everything Again Serene.
The Proposed Evidence Of Generals
Lee and Johnston.
An Affidavit Of What They Would Have
Stated to be Presented
Conclusion Of the Testimony ON
Both Sides.
Argument Of Counsel to be Commenced
on Wednesday Next.
&c. &c. &C.
Oil Finally Poured on the Troubled Waters,
and Everything Again Serene.
The Proposed Evidence Of Generals
Lee and Johnston.
An Affidavit Of What They Would Have
Stated to be Presented.
COnclusiOn Of the Testimony ON
Both Sides.
Argument of Counsel to be Commenced
on Wednesday Next.
&c. &c. &c.

Argument OF counsel TO DE commenced
on Wednesday Next.
&c. &c. &c.
WASHINGTON, Oct IL, 1865
The Wirz Military Commission reassembled this morn
ing
Judge Advocate CmPMAs sad-The only evidence
against Dr. Mudd that given by the witness Dilley
yesterday who said hc the doctor hold the artery
b two instances and then isthumb that the
blood spurted in the face Of the assistant OPERATOR for
the purpose the witness supposed Of making sport
Colonel Chapman said he assured by DR.. Bates-a
reliable gentleman-that Dr.. Mudd not capable Of
doing such inhuman act lie did not wish to be tho
means Of attaching blame injustice to anybody, and
hence he made this declaration outside Of Dley's
nony The act referred might have occurred without
attaching blame TO Dr. Mudd. II was Of those
eunonces where the blood was left to flow that the
artery might be discovered and taken up He therefore
hoped that Dr. Mudd would not suffer by the state
nent
Major General THOMAS remarked that he had some little
fancy for surgery, and bad frequently the blood
permitted to TOW that the artery might be dscov
cred
Judge Advocate CmpxAs further remarked that he did
not understand the purpose Of tho Court and
sanly IL not his own, TO attach blame any
properly. He then offered in evidence the CONSOLE
dated return Of the Andersonvle prison. dated sepcm
Der II, 1884, with the view Of removing the Idea that
Captain wirx was absent during that month
Edward Wellington Boate testified that he belonged
thc Forty second Now York Volunteers, and was a
prisoner both at Belle Isle and Andersonve the latter
better than the former; the prisoners carried with
lin from Belle Isle were sick, and some Of them died
On the way; the raons at Andersonve became smaller
the number Of prisoners increased the bread was
hnd rneh an do md will him. HE
generally the case; the prisoners sometimes il and
sometimes throw IL away; the swamp was improved
after he arrived there by dyking IT. there comfort
and convenience for the first two three months the
using pine boughs erecting tents for themselves
IN March there general count OF prisoners after the
hundreds the north side had been counted they
dismissed to their quarters but instead OF proceeding
thither they went to the south side the consequence
nxed correctly otherwise from seventeen hundred to
two thousand more raons would have been required
Captain Wirz said TO those who spoke to him the sub
ject, "You know why stopped the ratlons, and was
obliged to do it' some OF the men had small supply
81 raons from the day before witness heard OF
Captain Virus assanlting prisoners; Captain Wrz ap-
peaIed 10 the prisoners TO help enlarge the stockadc say
ing no wanted to give them ten instead Of four feet each
During the proceedings Mr. Baker mado some re-
marks to which Col Chapman replied that counsel had
assumed as q fact that which was not true
Mr. BAKER sad " the record did not show the fact
he had stated IL he would not ask another question
Col CaPnAS replied that the burden was ON counsel to
Mr. BAKER said tho government had refused to sub
penn Major Bowcs to prove certain facts.
Col CsIpMas characterized the statement false and
said distinctly, the honor OF gentleman and officer,
shat he never refused to subpoena Major Bowles for the
defendant in this case.
Major General wsiIAcrThis controversy must not go
on further. Let II have nm end.
Mr. BAKgR-I ask the Court
General WAfLAcR-The explanation has gone far
enough. Proceed with your examination.
Mr. BAKKR-I will correct the statement outside.
General WAtIAcE-0bey the order Of the Court or else
Mr. BAkrn-:r will not have an assertion made and not
be allowed 70 corrcctiL
removed.
M BAKR-Is II right TO ask the Court question:
General WArLAcr-Obey tho order or we will have yon
taken out ofthe This shall be done II you do not
Mr. Baker then resumed his seat.
Mr. BAKR-I ask the Court question
General wAu..cE--Ask the question Of the witness.
Mr. BAKER-ThenI will correct II outside
Colonel CHsfnAS-l'l meet you on any occasion and at
Mr. B.xEn-a don't want to NEE, you outside, but
Major General THoEAs-f this continues win have to
Major General sGaAaY-I second the motion This can
not be tolerated III be thus continues ne must and
; General WfIacs to Mr.. Baksr-Your course ia be-.
witnesss
Mr. BAxm-H lhave the same privileges ehe govern
General wAIL.cx You have been directed to 20 on
with the examination OF Witnesses; otherwise you must
Mr. BAxrR-I do mot dsobey tho order OF the Court.
The breeze here subsidized, and the examination was
resumed
witness said he was one Of delegation OF six prison
ers appointed TO cosc to Washington and present pc.
son 70 the United states authorities for an exchange OF
prisoners General winder and Captain wirz asserting 70
abe cnand.
Colonel CHNAN objected saying there was no evidence
10 show that the original petition reached the United
States authorities, of ITS having been destroyed and
besides there evidence 70 show the paper now
offered was exact copy.
Mr. BAKEa said that so far from conspiring. Captain
wirz taking active measures, and actually sending
Upion prisoners to the United States government to
effect an exchange.
The room was cleared for deliberaon, and after the
nounced, as follows:-There 10 not sufficient proof
show the paper sought 10 be introduced was
ever put into the hands Of the government, or
reached them In the noxt place II there Is sufficient
evidence 10 allow the presumption that II did reach the
government properly In any manner there Is not suf
hcient proof OF loss OF the original paper TO justify the
introduction OF this supposed copy In order that coun
pei may not lose any benefit the Court has directed the
Judge Advocate 70 apply to the proper officers Of the
government 10 ascertain whether such paper had ever
come into their hands, In order that az any time during
The trial that paper may be introduced.
Mr. BAsrR remarked that he would 90 10 show that
the delegation here three days knocking at the
doors OF the President and could not obtain admission
The witness testified that arriving at New York
with Mr. Tracy, OF the delegates they applied to
were refused
Mr.. BAKER said they offered 10 show by the witness
ahat the latter received letter from Mt TIaey dated