The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-15

Washington in substance that the delegates here
ness but were refused pernssion to confer with them
upon the subject He meant BY the authorities the Pres
den 2, o. War 81 e0; sSe witness did not come
to Washington but the proposition was that some one
came hther The proposition was TO be proved IN an
unheard OF way. He could scarcely believe that man
of the fame and heart and unmpeachable character OF
President Lincoln refused admission to anybody on a
subject Of that kind, and the Court must not allow
SANDER OF nature be repeated against great
and good as the late President Lincoln. While
he did not wish to exclude any fact, he hoped the
Court would require the counsel to prove it in the legal
way. -
not refer TO hts offer The stump speech about pres
dent Lincoln out Of the line of this proposition
The Judge Advocate had no more reverence for that
great than he had. He, therefore, would be the
last man TO reflect upon President Lincoln or any one
else but his duty to show his client was not guilty
Of the enormties charged against him. and he showed
that Captain Wrz and others trying get prisoners
released in order that they might return to their friends
then he did away the charge Of intention Of wrong
or cruelty against them. He would seek TO follow this
up to show that proposition was made TO send fifteen
thousand prisoners Andcrsonvile without asking
equivalent great the anxiety to get rid OF the
prisoners and that this refused His intention by
this was TO do away with the charge OF conspiracy,
when, in fact effort made to have the prisoners
released
Colonel CHAPMAN said Mr. Baker ought to have asked
subpoena for Mr. Tracy.
The CouRr asked whether his whereabouts known.
Colonel CHAPMAN replied he could be sent for in twenty
Mr. BAKER then asked that he be produced and that
Colonel Oud might be also
Ould.
BAKER replied that he had said he would not delay
the trial but when he turned upon he asked for ad
dtonal testimony TO clear his client.
Colonel CHAPMAN said the only practical point was that
Wnder and Wirz made efforts leading 70 the coming OF
mission to Washington. What the mission did had
nothing to do with this whether the government
right wrong If this course was pursued another
month would be consumed to show whether the
ment to blame the man on trial. If Tracy had
been asked for he would have been subpenaed but
toward the close Of the trial, they were asked in
bOiStcr0uS
been especially reserved
Major General THOMAS remarked-CounseI knew
government would not exchange prisoners while the
rebel government refused recognize coored prisoners
as soldiers and murdered them.
Mr. BAKER said he wanted TO show that Winder and
Wirz were not guilty Of conspiracy.
The CouRr sustained Colonel Chipmans objection.
Mr. BAKER Offer, d in evidence copy or the proceed
ngs and sentence Of the court martial which tried the
raiders and which approved by General Wnder
was either lost or destroyed This would remove
much OF the blame which had been these officers
and was altogether favorable 70 the defence.
Colonel CnpMAs objected, saying that the trial was
inegularly conducted, in the midst Of mob and APP
OF The proposition to introduce assumed
copy of the record, either for Winders defence TO
allow vague testimony to be used TO excupate this prs
oner.
The objection Of Colonel Chapman sustained by
the Court
Tie witness further examined, when Mr.
Baker said that in his previous remarks he alluded
Major Boyle and not Major Bowles
Colonel CHAPMAN said the government here rested its
claim in the prosecution of the prisoner He wished
make statement in behalf OF himself and associate
pameyTh proposed to let the counsel for tho prs
make out affidavit to what they could have
proved by those whom they wished TO be subpGnaed
The Court Of course could judge OF its propriey ree
vancy.
These remarks understood to refer to Generals
Lee, Johnston, Cobb and otheis
TIE corRT said IL had never refused or decided in
any manner that these witnesses should not be brought
here
Colonel CHirMlN remarked that Mr.. Baker had said
the whole thai he would ask that those parties be
subpGnacd
Mr. BAKER said whatever had passed let L 60 SO far
as there had been anything Of personal nature he
would not here outside, rcler TO it, Tho Judge
although he had treated the case Of tho defendant
roughly.
The torRr said both sides rested. The rule per-
mted counsel for defence to up in behalf Of the
prisoner, to be responded TO by the Judge Advocate
both TO be in writing The only thing which remained
TO be done TO tx The time for the hearing OF the
guments
Mr. BAKER said he mus, ask for two weeks time to
prepare his argument He had not got single thing
laid oat for IL yet.
Colonel Cmpnbx in reply 20 question by the Court,
sa he would want only twenty four hours after the
reading Of the comnscs argument
The Court, being cleared for deiberatior, in
formed Mr.. Baker that they had decided give him
until next Stay week.
Mr. BAKER said 1t impossible for him prepare in
so short a time.
The Coumr said they could not extend the time
Mr. BAKrR replied then he must submit He urged the
Court to review its decision when the again
cleared and after celebration the Conrt informed MIR
Baker that they would give HIM twelve days. until the
26th inst
Mr. BAKrR not satisfied he wanted two weeks he
could not accept that time.
Colonel CHIrNAN, being asked hat time he wanted
said until next "Wednesday. II the counsel would not
at all he would endeavor TO all the points in
the
The court then adjourned till next Wednesday.