Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-07-04
Gard from Col. Baxter.

We take the following card of Col. Baxter from
the little dirty rebel Commercial to show the stupid
plumbers ard wiful misrepresentation of that mis-
every witness that testified, complains of the mis-
representations of that paper. Attorney General
Thornburg and Judge Swan both complain of being
grossly misrepresented. In a word the accounts
given of these trials like the reports of political
meetings and speeches, by the same paper, are
essentially false-they are false by Suppression,
false by jieniaE and false by misrepresentation.
But to the card of Col. Baxter, correcting the
pretended report" of his testimony. If SO dispos-
ed every witness on the stand, together with the
Judge and States Attorney, might make similar
corrections:
Mr.. EDITOR In the pretended report of the
evidence in the case OF the State Us. Mccain ana
Others, which appeared in your issue of yesterday
the following paragraph appears:
Col. Baxter was the next witness called for the
State The evidence obtained from this witness was
substantially the in its points and bearings as
in the former trial. and as tkere have been no new
points brought to light except his testimony in the
former trial was that Mccain was present and he
testified to-day his impression was that Mccain was
not present. we refrain from repeating the testi-
mony.
Now this statement of your reporter is grossly
inaccurate Seeing this, you have in this morn
ings paper inserted the following correction"
CoRkECTIoE.-The printer, by the omission OF
testimony of Col Baxter for the State reported yes
terday. In the case of Haun, Col B. testified that
Mccain was present at the trial. The report yes
terday was written To-day he testified his i'm
preston that Mccain was not present at the trial OF
Harmon" The testimony for the defense corrects
the first misrepresentation; but in that an error
also made attributable, however to the chirog-
should be l.. G. Ledbetter, the one who dissolved
the court.
But this article is unintelligible and unsatsfac
tory, that propose to -" correct" your reporters
statement of the evidence in my own way.
There was no discrepancy in my testimony given
on the first and second trial. 1t was the same on
both occasions, and was in the particulars referre
to substantially this: That Mccain was a member
of Rebel Court martial which sat in Knoxville
Tennessee, in December, 1851, for the trial OF
what were termed the Bridge Burners" before
whom six of my clients were tried that said Court
sat for several weeks, during which time Mccain
was absent on visit TO Nashville; that | was not
certain at what time he was so absent, but to the
best Of my recollection he present and partici
pated as member of said Court when Haun was
tried but not present at the trial Of Jacob Harmon
and this testimony was distinctly clearly and con-
csely stated leaving no decent pretext for the blum
der which your reporter has made.
Please insert this communication in your next
number; and if in the future your reporters have
not the capacity to report accurately than they
have done III this case, will esteem it special IA
vor if they will omit any mention of what l may
either do or say.
Such papers as may have copied the objectionabl lie
paragraph referred to above, will oblige me by copy
ing this Communication also.
Respectfully, &c,
JNo. BAXTER.
Knoxville Tenn, June 10th, 1866