Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-09-21

knows OF the evidence; that it was to
the effect that johnson murdered Lincoln
for his office, and that it was useful TO
his party; and would be dare pretend
now that he does not know that il was
suborned2 Why the preposterous de.
ceit that twas in the closed " rebel
archieve office? Was ho talking Of any
other evidence than that which Butler
talks of in the above correspondence ?
Well, let us see what evidence Butler
talks of:
Through lady and gentlemen fellow
boarders, ETC., he was informed that Mrs.
Dunham's husband could procure ''evi-
dence" General Butler said if Mrs.
Durham would bring him statement
from her husband, setting forth the char.
acter Of the documents, he would enable
her to get at them. Mrs Durham after.
wards called on the General with the re-
quired statements, etc. Fifty dollars was
agreed on. Cheap for the services OF
fabricator so talented and so recently
distinguished 1t turned out, however,
that the document of which the state.
ment gave an account of did not come
forward. Where is that statement How
much did it resemble the statement
mentioned by Ashley in letters to his
partner, Conover2 How much did it
resemble the following, from among the
papers recited to the President in the re-
port from the Attorney Generals Office,
from which we extract:
Here follows the memorandum" pre-
viously published in the Attorney
Generals report, containing an account
of a pretended correspondence between
Johnson and Davis through Booth; also
the letters of Ashley urging on Dunham
(alias Conover) certain statements
to be fabricated and proved by suborned
and trained witnesses, which we omit as
likely to be recollected by our readers.
The htelIigencer continues j
Here is one statement" Ashley
mentions statement" Butler men
tions statement;" it is we'll known
corresponding with the above, to mem.
bers of the Committee of the House.
The whole matter seems to hinge on a
statement" Now, how did the Butler
statement work Let US see it. Did it
end with words like the above, showing
what names might be substituted as those
of witnesses for "such persons as you
know ioiU take their parts :"
Moreover, what was the character OF
the documents" that Mrs Dunham
was to bring over from New York, in con.
sideration ofthe fifty dollars. Were those
the documents" that are known to
have been paraded, with very respecta-
BILE looks and plausible tales before sew
eral members of Congress, for the pur-
pose of showing how well they could
swear They refused to swear until
Dunham's release was procured, and,
consequently, the fifty dollars and the
perilous pains were for nothing. Butler
is understood to allege that she did not
furnish the documents. 1t must have
been about that time that the happy idea
struck some ingenious and experienced
suborner, to procure from the President
through pardon, the use of their instru.
ments for his own expulsion from office,
his murder, and revolution of the Gov
ernment The Bureau of Military JUS
tice General Judge Holt says, was not
implicated. We suppose not A bureau
in the act of suborning witnesses is an
awkward thing to imagine A "bu reau"
could as we'll be fancied taking a chew
of tobacco. But the head of that bu-
reau was genius before the bureau was,
and, if he lives, will soon be genius
without o bureau. Let the admissions
of Butler and Boutwell, stand of need in
this case.