The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-03-07
[BY OUR OWN SPECIAL REPoRTER.l
Trial Of Major John 4. Gee.
FIFTH DAY.
MORNING SESSION.

MONDAY, feD 70, looo.
The Court met pursuant to adjournment-al
the members being present.
The Journal of Saturday was read and ap-
proved
7 l. Lyerly was recalled and direct examination
was resumed
He testified that Freeman's battalion was en-
tireIy under the command of Maj. Gee for por-
tion of the time. 1t comprised about 800 men.
don't know when the battalion was transferred
to his command-sometime previous TO wnen
Gen. Bradley T. Johnston came there. lie came
there in the latter part of 1851 am not certain
of the date The prisoners when they came were
in bad condition-nor was it good when they left
All those who were not on the sick list could walk
when they left-about 800 could walk, think.
In regard to furnishing lumber for shelter for
these prisoners, from my knowledge of the re-
sources of the country for lumber, the obstacles
were: The lumber could not be sawed, because
every thing was stopped by all the men being in
the army. The four saw mills of the n. G. r. r.
could have turned out 5000 feet of lumber per
day if properly attended. 1 don't know how
much lumber would have been required to shell
ter prisoners-don't know as to these mills rum
ming during the war, except the one now own.
don't know how much it was run during the
war. If all had run, they could have cut lumber
enough to make shelters, but l don't know the
facilities for transporting lumber, though the
mills were on the railroads, and trains ran regu-
larly This was the same road that brought wood
to the prison-the wood train ran daily.
CROSS EXAMINED.
served under Gibbs, McKoy, Alex. Gilmer,
Galloway and Fuqua, prior to Maj. Gees coming
to Salisbury,
@. Which of all these commanders, including
Maj Gee, was kindest to the prisoners of war?
This question was objected to on the ground
that the acts of other commanders could not ef-
feet the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, and
the question simply involves the opinion of the
witness The objection was sustained.
Some controversy arose in regard to former an
swers of the witness to certain questions, during
his examination yesterday, in relation to the num-
ber of prisoners at Salisbury, when Maj. Gee
took command there, and the witness explained,
repeating his for former answers.
The examination then proceeded.
Question Do you state positively that there
were no prisoners of war at Salisbury prior to the
1864?
Answer There had been while Maj Gibbs was
there, but they had been removed, and at that
time there were none but conscripts and political
prisoners.
O. Were there not near 800 prisoners there in
October when the large number arrived?
A. can't say, they were coming and going so
much. don't know who had command, further
than Maj Gee reported to Gen. Gardner. A
weekly report was sent him at Richmond, Va,
portion of the time. 1t stated the number pres
ent, number died, number sick. in the hospital,
and the other different classes of prisoners also
how many convicts and how many prisoners of
war. No such report was made to authorities,
before it was made by Maj. Gee.
@. Did Maj Gee send for an inspector to in
spect the prison?
TThis question being objected to, unless the wit
ness could say positively, of his own knowledge,
in regard to the fact.
The Counsel for the defense urged that what
was said at the time forms part of the res geste
is relevant and to be taken to show the nature of
the act The defense would not claim that what
he said afterward, but what he said at the time,
to his subordinates, while in the discharge of his
duty.
The Judge Advocate contended that what Maj.
Gee may have told witness in regard to his hav-
ing sent for Inspector was not sufficiently con-
nected with any special act, as to be connected.
with the act or to show its nature, or the intent
of it. Use
On the genera proposition to admit what the
prisoner said to his subordinates wilhelm the dis
charge of his duties, as to what he did or had not
done, the Court decided, after consultation, that