Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-08-30

veraclty, was incorrect
In regard to the testimony of Hendricks,
published some time since, it should have
read that Hendricks had not seen TOLd1' be-
fore, on The dau that Bebee uaS killed. Ken
bricks had known Tolar about two years.
Card from Judge HoIt.
10 tie Editor Of the Chronicle
SIR-I thank you for the explicitness
with which you stated, in your issue of this
morning, that certain affidavits previously
published in your paper, processing to ex-
pose its conspiracy against the Bureau of
Military Justice, '' did not constitute any
part of the records of that Office" were not
obtained from it, "and that neither nor
any officer of said bureau was responsible
for their publication" Your statement is
true in every particular. The papers re-
ferred to were nerer on the files Of that 6ae-
redu, nor had they any connection oChatecea'
at1ader may control nor we're they published
aoiM nay knowledge or consent, or after any
consultation aDiM me, or intinaation to me Of
a1ay such purpose.
L may add further, that the declaration
made that a recommendation for Exc
cutive clemency in the case of Sanford
Conover had come from the Bureau of Mil
itary Justice is untrue. My endorsement
on the letter of Mr.. Riddle was written in
my own house, and signed by myself as
citizen, and had no connection whatever
with the Bureau of Military Justice. 1t
was in no sense Recommendation, and
neither contained, nor was intended to con-
tain any expression of confidence in the
general integrity or truthfulness of Como
yer. An examination of it's language will
show that it was based solely on a princi-
pie of recognized public policy as applca-
BILE to the state of facts presented by Mr..
Riddle, important services rendered by
Conover in the trial of Surratt, to which
state of facts it was strictly confined, and
that 1T neither urged nor suggested any de-
finite Executive action. All averments or
intimations, no matter by whom made, or
however supported, which seek to connect
me in any degree or in any way with the
alleged conspiracy against the President,
are wholly false, as are all insinuations
that in the step I took in concert with Mr..
Riddle [ either aimed OF desired to qualify
ConOver as a witness for any purpose what
ever. J. Holt.
WASHINGTON, D. c., August II, 1867.
.REMARKs.
Judge Holt is an astute lawyer-a special
pleader of acknowledged ingenuity. In
the last paragraph of the above letter he
adroitly draws a distinction between Gen
eral Holt, chief of the "Bureau of Military
Justice" and Judge Holt, private citizen.
In reference to the recommendation for
Executive clemency in the case of Conover
he says MY endorsement on the letter of
Mr.. Riddle was written in my own house
and signed by myself as a citizen, and had
no connection whatever with the Bureau of
Military Justice" We cannot perceive, in
the morality of this transac-
ton, why he SO vehemently insists upon
this distinction, which would seem to the
in such subtleties to be of
no more gravity than that between "twee-
lledum and tweedledee." But awarding
him the full benefit derivable from that
source, we are willing to submit to the
Judgment of the public, whether the plain
meaning of his endorsement" on the
etter of Mr.. Riddle could be otherwise
construed than as a recommendation
sor clemency" on the grounds presented in
5he letter he thus endorsed. If we read
;he Acting Attorney Generals exposition
0acity of Mr.. Holt, by distinctly stating
hat. The recommendations were not
written on "official paper" If the Chief of |
4O 4o441eGIAJ 11uICcus 1I1OAO GOASASA VI Wiz |
reputation of his office than Of his personal |
credit, kept these dark transactions from |
he public archives, SO much the better for |
he exalted position he yet unwortllily fills;
)ut we protest that he shall not escape, by
uch retinements, from the Indignation of
n alarmed people, righteously excited by
lis admitted personal connection, "aS a
itizen," with these abominable intrigues.
In respect to the completely of Judge
Holt with the batch of suborned affidavits
to have been concocted in New
York, (for we must be particular in distin-
gushing the different phases of these stu
,endous machinations,) we have little to
ay, as a proper elucidation will require
urther developments. 1t is remarkable,
however, that Mr.. Holt, in al his minute
nd special ave1ments, in the way of excul-
,ation, nowhere denies that he was privy
o their procurement, or that he was fully
ognizant of their purport and purpose, or
iduals in whose possession they were pre-
ious to publication, and by whom they
7ere communicated to the public press
lie contents himself with avering that the
apers referred to were never "on the files
f the bureau that they had no " "connec-
ion whatever with its record" ''nev-
r uaCle1' his control"-that " they were not
ublished acith his knowledge or consent -
nd that he had no intimation of any
urpose of publication. All we or the pub
C know of these infamous papers, beyond |
hat appears upon their face, is that they
ere published simultaneously in this city,
and New York, and that
udge Holt was in the last named city at
le time of publication. The reasonable ,
1riosity of the public will not be gratified l
y being merely told that they were never
,garded and treated as official documents in
le Bureau of Military Justice-that they :
ere never under the Control ofits chief,
I'd that he never authorized or was privy
their publication. Judge Holt would j
rite to some purpose, if in another ''cdrd' t
should say they were never in his Office
ficially or oherwise-that they we're never p
under the control" of any OF his under p
ags-and that he was not only not con- G
tied about their publication, but was en-
rely ignorant of their existence. Until :
ch declarations are made, and under cir >