Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1867-04-02
Bingham VS.. Butler.

Ol Ine otueT. 1hlS set>to must nave Afforded
intense qualification to the members ON tho
conservative side of the House This is the
first time, we believe, that Buffers spoon
stealing has been thrown in his teeth, by
member of his own party; and on the other
side, it is the first time that the hanging of
Mrs. Surratt has been pronounced judicial
murder. Good for Butler-bully for Bing>
/ ham.
On Tuesday last, in the House of Repre-
scntatives,
Mr., Butler, of Mass, asked and obtained
leave to make akpersonal explanation, and
said he had caused to be laid upon the desk
OF each member copy of a speech by the
| gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Bingham } as ia
ken from the official journal of the House.
and also report of the speech us it appeared
from the reporters notes before it was cor
rectcd. lie would call attention to the fact
that the speech, as taken from the reporters
notes, contained double the amount of mat
ter given in the Official report of the Globe.
lie had always understood that in debate
involving purely personal matters these
changes could not be made. But what made
the change here yet more odious wcs that it
was put in such shape to make direct
attack in such a way that he (Butler) could
not have answered it as it was put the other
day. lie would not make a Characterization
by cpithct OF what he thought of such a
course. lie could overlook and excuse what
might be said in the heat Of debate but
the man was not to be cnvied who could sit
down in the cool of the evening, when all
was calm about him and bring such an accu-
sation against his peers as could not have been
answered at the time the debate actually oc
oorh !
printed and therefore he (Mr. Butler) could
not reply to it. In the speech as delivered
the gentleman says: ''By what right does the
gentleman thus assail me, or the tribunals of
true and brave and honorable men who found
the iucts upon their Caths and pronounced
their judgment? What docs the gentleman
know Of the evidence in the case and what
does he care for the evidence when he TINS
AssalIs the official conduct Of those men who
constituted the court?" He (Mr ButIerN
did know Of the evidence taken upon the as
sasslnatlon trials. He had examined it with
great care, and the view lie had expressed the
other day as to the innocence OF Mrs. Surratt
1t was no sporadic thought of his, but was
made up after clear and calm delberation.-
In his speech the gentleman from Ohio (Nr.
Bngham) said he was the advocate of the
United States lie (Mr. Butler) denied the
fact Mr.. bingham was the special judge
Advocate of the United States and. as such.
1t was his duty to care for the interest of the
prisoner and to present all the evidence bear.
ing upon the case. There was an important
part of the evidence which was not produced
upon that investigation. When Booth was
captured his captors found upon his person,
amcng other. things, diary. in which Booth
set down all the facts connected with the con.
spiracy; the names Of those engaged in it:
his motives for the act, and probably some
sort of excuse for his part in the matter
Why was this evidence suppressed and why
was not this diary placed in evidence before
the Commission? His tobacco pine. and his
compass, and even portion of his clothinu
were brought before the Commission for the
purpose of identification, but this diary which
might have given an important light was not
produced at all. That diary is now before
the Committee on the Judiciary of this House
lie wished it to be understood, however, that
he had not had access to the diary. nor had
lie received any information that he should
refer to 1t from any member of that commits
tee. but what he would state he had got from
hearsay. That diary was now before the
committee on the Judiciary, and with eigh-
teen pages that were certainly in it at the time
of the capture cut out. He wanted now to
know whether that diary was not whole when
1t reached the hands Of the Government Off
cIals!. And if it was, what kind of policy
was 1t to be pursued which placed the tobac-
co pipe IN evidence for the purpose OF identi-
lying Booth, and withheld the sure means of
Identification which was his own hand wri-
ting in his own diary? Why was the diarv
not placed in evidence as well as the tobacco
pipe? The gentleman accused him of as
sailing the officers who composed the court.
when it was said that Mrs Surratt was Luno
unjustly. lie (Mr. Butler) had done no such
thing. lie had in no particular assailed the
officers of the court. They acted under their
oatls upon such testimony as was presented
to them by the Judge Advocate They did
not and could not know the nature Of any
evidence that was suppressed or withheld
from them. They did not sec the diary and
could not know its contents. but it was the
duty of the Judge Advocate to adyise them
of such testimony and that he had failed to
do. Who spoilated that book ? Who cut
the leaves from it? Whose knife mutilated
it? Who withheld and suppressed testimo-
ny, and caused an innocent woman to be
hung. when he might Have saved her by the
simple production of the diary? There is a
leaf in that diary which was not cut out or
spoliated, Mr.. Butler here produced diary
from his pocket and laid it upon the desk
before him and continued That page had
been written over Immediately after the as
NsS'nstlou anu ThlIe booth was fugitive.
and was to the effect that he had endeavored
to recross the Potomac for the purpose of go,
ing to. Washington and giving himself up,
and clearing himself of that of which he was
charged How could that page have been in
II the book was not spoilatcd after it came
into the possession of the Government. and
why was it that the other pages were cut out.
so that it could not be ascertaiued how Booth
expected to clear himself of his crime? Wbv
was not Colonel COuyer, who captured Booth
allowed to 90 on and toll oil ,hd,,4 a. i: