Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-10-20
COMMUNICATED

tANA AAAAA6ALD
Editors Memphis Appeal:
In your article on the Milliken case
contsined in your issue Of the 18th, | see
that you have been led into an error ID
relation to some Of the facts connected
with Milliken's arrest. You state he
was arrested by q Lieutenantin the Fed
eral service, and sent IN custody OF q
guard to Gen. ThOmGs." This statement
would 60 to relieve Gen. Thomas OF the
direct responsibility for the arrest and
so far modify his Outrageously unjust and
ILLEGAL treatment Of young Milliken.
The true history Of the arrest Is a follows;
On the night of the affair with Baum,
the Federal Lieutenant stationed at La
Grange had MillikeB arrested at Baum's
instance. He was, either that night OF
the next day, released, and it was sup
posed by himself and friends that the
matter was ended. About ten days OF
two weeks thereafter Gen. Thomas him
self issued Al order for Milliken's arrest,
which, after passing through the various
departments, reached Lieutenant Hugo
at LAGRANGE, and he Immediately
arrested Linn, and IN Oted.EREB 70
the order, sent him forward tO
Louisville, where be was confined
ILA EaAAC AAAAg AZ a ~afAareNa " -@%-
MfIIiken wss at Louisville Mr.. Psrhsm,
Of LAGRANGE Ia respectable and inhuen-
tisl citizan) visited Gen. Thomas and
represented to him the true state Of the
case lhsving afidsvits of citizens and
Federal soldiers to support his statement
and sought his release from custody, but
failed in his mission. Millken was
shortly afterwards remanded to Lagrange
70 be tried by q Military Commission.
The Origia0! order Of Gen. Thomas
directed, in substance, the arrest "Of the
armed parole rebel soldier without
naming him d" referred to the inclOsed
extract" to be forwarded to Louisville
to be 4" imprisoned iR the LUlaSviIe Bar
rucks.U The "inelOsed extract" was q
little newspaper slip cut from the Mem
phis Post purportiDg to give an account
Of the affair with Baum. You see from
the above ststemsnt, Mr.. Editor, that
Gen. Thomas is directly and in the first
instance ~FaspOnsibis for Millikeu's arrest,
his removal TO Kentucky,and his subse-
quent confinement and that he based
his order for the arrest upon a partisan
newspaper report Of q difficulty between
two private citizens.
saw it stated IN the report Of the last
days proceedings Of the trial that Bar
bOur Lewis amendment to Hugois re-
turn was agreed TO by Of ths priso-
Der's counsel, and 1 see that you repeat
the statement 10 your article. The
counsel referred to is myself. From an
unavoidable necessity Z was absent on
the day Of the final trial, and therefore
vas not there to deny the statement
when made, BE- had 1 done on a former
occasion. l. is true that I knew of the
alteration before il was read in Court,
but 1 never for q moment thought OF
agreeing or Directing TO what l supposed
was Lieut.. Hugo's return, amended by
himself, in any other way than by al
lacking it in open Court, By moving to
discharge on account Of its insuficiency,
OF by traversing It's truth. As The return
Of the officer I considered it a matter
that 1 neither had q right 10 agree or
object to privately. All that I ever said
TO Judge Lewis about the return vas TO
inquire Of him why Hugo did not make
an exhibit Of Gen. Thomas original
order, ana state sll the facts Of the case
80 that the whole matter might come
before the Court 1t once; and his
reply was that perhaps be might He
did not do so however, and the suisse
quent history of the case shows that
Lewis object was TO keep back the real
facts because he knew they were damag-
ing to his cause) and put in lieu thereof
words that he thought would act IS a
trap TO hold the prisoner, but which
were really -nOnsenslcal and utterly in
sufficient as a return. This whole affair
is a repetition Of what is frequently
related in history-the gross usurpatiOn
Of q Tyrsnt, and the employment Of the
trickery Of a supple tool 70 gloss it over
with . legal covering.
J. A. ANDERSON.