Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-08-15

anCe with the sentence OF the court. iii
application seems to be predicsted, il
part, upon a supposed technical iTregu
lsrity in the constitution of the jury, an
is supported mainly by the services whicl
he il alleged to have rendered the caus
Of Justice in aiding the prosecuting coun
sci in the collection of evidence, and 9th
erwise, upon the trial Of John II. Sur
Tatt for murder.
The papers upon which his application
is grounded, and by which it is sustained
consist of four, in parcel, which, by in
dorsemeut, appears 10 have reached tn
executive office on Saturday, the 9th G
July, 1867. The first is dated the .
July, and is written upon the ordinsr
note paper used by mem bers Of the hOus
Of representatives, with an engrave
vignette caption. The following is
copy:
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
WAsHISGTOH, ID. T., July p, 1857
| Gentlemen: 1 suggest that petition
something like the inclOsed, be prepare
and signed by you for the pardon Of Nj
Durham. think he is clearly entitle
TO it, and hope you will aid him all yo
can. Respectfully,
Hon. ]. Holt, Hon. A. G. Riddle.
Itwould seem, from an expression use
in this note, that draft of petition wa
inclosed. It does not appear what pet
ton was thus designated.
The next paper is the following, froI
a late representative in congress fro1
Ohio, now q member Of the Washingto
bar:
To the President OF the United States:
Sir: was, early in April last, retaine
to aid the government in the prosecution
of John H. Surratt, and took the geners
management of the preparation of tn
case.
The labor and difficulties of the cas-
were great, and the government is uOde
( great obligations to Charles A. Dunhan
for much valuable information, both a
to the facts and witnesses for the Unite'
States, and for the history of and fact
concerning the witnesses called for tn
defense. Although In jail, he manages
/ to keep informed of the progress of th
case, and from time to time cOmmunica
ted important facts and suggestions, an
I seemingly for the sole purpose of fai
4 investigation of the case, whether
I would work for his benefit or not.
seems TO me that for his services in thi
F. behalf the government should mark ii
appreciation of them in way not to b
mistaken. Respectfully,
/ Nothing is among the papers from tn
/ office of he district attorney, or from
/ anv of the counsel in the Surratt trial
excepting Mr.. Riddle.
The next recommendation is from tn
bureau Of military justice:
WAsHISeToN. July "a, 1867.
I concur with the Hon. A. G. Riddl
in his estimate Of the value and import
ance of the services rendered by Charlie
A. Dunham, as set forth in the fOTegOin
letter to the president. A principle c
public policy leads governments to en-
| courage, by sll honorable means, thos
charged with crime to make disclosure
which may, and often do, result in IN
masking even greater offenders tha
those who make them; and hence whe
they are found to have acted voluntarily
and in good faith, the highest public con
siderations require that their eonduc
shall be generously appreciated. IN
services of Dunham, with the details c
s which Mr.. Riddle must be entirely IA
miliar, as one Of the counsel in the case
seem to have been performed withOU
.
and Justice, in connection with one c
the most important criminal trials whic
has occurred in the history of the coun
try; snd, although his disclosures wer
not directly connected with the Grim
uality Of which he himself has been con
victed, vet il Is believed that they do nc
the less bring his case within the spiri
and reason of the rule of policy referred t
and hence it is for the executive to dc
'ermine how far they shall be accepte
at once as proof Of his repentance, an
as an atonement to the law, for who's
/ vio 'atiOn be stands condemned.
~ ]. HOLT.
! 1t may be proper TO remark that th
recon mendstiOn of the judge advocat
/ genera, is written upon one leaf of tn
! same sh eet with that OF Mr.. Riddle, an
not upon official paper. g.
/ It will be observed that, notwithstanG
/ ing this M an stood condemned for pei
iuTy. Mr.. Riddle, by actual experience
and Judg,s Holt, upon sstisfactOr
grounds Of b elief, have fully realized hi
! usefulness in promoting, by his cooper
alton with Do bile agents Of Justice, th
cause of truth on the occasion of an In
yestigation of national Importance, an
also that the la tier intimates his opinio
that he had fairy RtOned to the OffeDde
law. and had sat, 'sfactOrily demonstrate
his repentance. 1t is remarkable th8
Durham himself, In his petition, (whie
purports to be in his own handwriting
mentions no such grounds, but trusi
mainly to q techniCality. His petito
Is as follows;
/ WASH UNGTOS, July 26. 1851
To Bis Excslleucy Andrew johnson, PresideT
% The United states.
The petition of Chsrles A. Dunbar
respectfully shows that in the month {
January last he was tried, convicted, an
| sentenced to the penitentiaTy for per
Jury, alleged to have been committed be
fore the judiciary committee Of the nous
Of representatives during the investiga
ton by said committee of charges agains
Jefferson Davis of completely in the cor
spiracy to sssassinaJe President Lincoln
That the perjury assigned in the il
dictment against the petitioner was
having falsely testified that he bad .
reason to doubt, and did not doubt, th
truthfuIness of certain depositions mad
by two persons, called Campbell an
Snevel, at the time said dispositions wer
given by them in the buresu OF militaF
justice, and in testifying that he ha
first seen said Campbell in Canada
] j
ton, North Carolina, in August, 1855
That on the trial Of your petitione
said Campbell and Snevel declared tbs
their real names were Hoare and Rol
erts, and that the dispositions they ha
made and sworn to in the bureau {
military were absolutely false from bt
ginning to end, and were known to be {
by your petitioner; and that they wei
not at-said Campbell In Canada in jun
1855, or said Snevel in Wilmington
August, lS65-the places at which yoT
petitioner claimed TO have first see
them.
+ That it was entirely upon this test
mony of said self-confessed perjurel
bat your petitioner was convicted an
n vat without the said testimony of sal
ne vsons the Jury before whom your pet
TONER was tried could not possibly hay
found a verdict of guilty"
Your petitioner further says that /
was trieo' and convicted by a jury NJ
oualIfied to try him; that the juroi
before whom he was so tried and col
demped v,Nre Illegally selected an
drawn, as decided by the court in ii
case of John II. SurTatt, the manner an
form of selecting and drawing the juro
in the case ofSnrratt and your petition,
being identical. That In the discussio
on the opening Of the trial Of Surratt, I
20 the legal qualification OF the turo
who had been summoned and empaI
/ nelIed TO try him, it was contended b
the prosecution, and decided by Ii
court, that said jurors were informall
and irregularly selected and drawn, an
that anV verdict they might rend,
upon any trial would be absolutely vol,
Your petitioner further says that und'
the rules and practice of the suprem
court of this District, the above inform
alitv ia the selection and drawing OF
iury does not, AFTER SENTENCE under
Uerdict found 6y such a jury, coDstitu
a ground for new trial or other relief !
the court and that the only remedy Il
such an Illegal conviction lies in sn 81
plication TO the executive for pardon.
CHAs. A. DUNHAM.
The above are all the papers whiC
have come to my knowledge in relatiC
Co the application for pardon. Wh'
s..-,,,s,4ara9 IN connection with nth