The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-03-29

The mutilation of the diary had been made
before 1t came into the hands of the Govern
ment, or 1t had not. If the eighteen missing
pages were gone when the Secretary of War
first saw it, and Mr.. Bingham was cognizant
of that fact, he would have exculpated himself,
and exculpated everybody, from Buffers
damaging imputations, by stating that fact,
in clear and explicit terms. He burst not
make such a statement, for he did not know,
from his own inspection, whether it was true
or not, and the probabilities were all against
it. But Mr.. Bingham saw as everybody must
see, that nothing else could clear the Govern
ment and so he insinuated as a hypothesis
what truth did not warrant him in stating as a
fact. In reply to Buffers accusation of "spo-
liating'' the diary, he said:--" Who kno,os" Che
evidently knew nothing on the point himself
one way or the otheT) ''that it ,OaS spoliated
II John Wilkes Booth tore pages out of IT,
was that spoiation ?" This is the language
of speaker feeling his way in the dark of a
man who sees what the defense ought to be,
but knows not what it is. If the diary came
mutilated into the hands of the Government,
instead of putting 1t as a hypothesis, why not
state it as q fact Only one reason is con-
ceivable-he did not know it to be a fact. And
yet if it was a fact, his connection with the
trial as chief manager entitled him to know
it; and had it been true, it is against all
probability that it would have been with
nblu lIOlu ullu. III Inb diary came lDJO
Stanton's hands whole, and was afterwards
mutilated, it is easy to see why Bingham was
not permitted to inspect it. He might make
troublesome inquiries, which Stanton did not
wish to answer. Considering Mr.. Bingham's
relations with the parties, the fact that he
suggested an exculpatory hypothesis when,
had it been in his power, he would have made
a plump denial, fastens the mutilation on the
War Department.
L. DE- i
about the diary, he evidently suspects them,
and cautiously confines all the positive part
of the exculpation to his own individual
agency. Observe how cautiously his state
ments are worded:-"I defy him to show that
any communication ever came into my hands
purportng to be-" etc. 81 never saw any
memoranda by which John Wilkes Booth, !"
etc. 81 challenge him to assert that spoliated
any book" 1.-The gentleman knows that 1 was
not the official organ of the Court" Mr..
Bingham prudently limits his strong denials
to his own participation and knowledge. He
dares not assert either that the diary was not
mutilated by the Government, nor that its
missing pages did not contain important and
pertinent evidence.
I He certainly knew at the time that there
was such a diary; he certainly lent himself to
! the dishOnOrable, nay, the foully disgraceful,
! trick OF blindfOlding the Court into the belief
llaI every JnlnS IOund on the person OF BOOth
| having the slightest pertinence to the case,
! had been faithfully submitted to their inspec-
| tion. Mr.. Bingham's defense on this point is
| aipitiful legal quibble. He says that the evi-
dence which he withheld was a statement
made by the criminal after the fact, and was
| therefore rot admissible. This may be true
of the transcript furnished him from the diary,
but his argument cannot apply to the fact that
| such diary existed. Had its existence been
known to the Court they ought to have
called for it, and doubtless would have called
for it. 1t was for the Court, not the accusers,
| to Judge of its value as evidence. Had it come
| into Court as fragment, its mutilation would
have been inquired into and traced to its
source. If there were things in it which were
not pertinent as evidence, there must, from
! the nature of such record, have been other
things which were pertinent; and it was the
business of the Court, not the accusers, to de-
termine which they were and what weight to
! give them
| In all the scandalous transactions of the last
six years, we can recall nothing so thoroughly
and atrociously disgraceful as this trickish
attempt to deceive a Court sitting to try
people for their lives Gone of them woman),
and to deceive the country and the world,
who were watching the proceedings with the
thrilling interest excited by the assassination,
whose exact history they were anxious to
| learn.