The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1867-08-23

their conduct snail De generously aD-
preciated. The service of Dunham,
with the details Of which Mr.. Riddle
must be entirely familiar, as one of the
counsel in the case, seem to have been
performed without solicitation. and in
the interests of truth and Justice, in
connection with one of the most i'm
portant criminal trials which has Oc-
Cured in the history of the country {:
and although his disclosures were not
directly connected with the criminality
of which he himself has been convict
ed, vet it is believed that they do not
the less bring his case within the spirit
and reason of the rule of policy refer
red to, and hence it is for the EXecu-
tive to determine how far they shall be
accepted at once as proof of his re-
pentance, and az atOnement to the law,
for whose violation hestands condemn
ed. j. Holt
1t may be proper to remark that the
recommendation of the Judde AdvO-
cate General is written upon one leaf
of the same sheet with that of Mr.. Rid
die, and not upon official paper.
1t will be observed that, nOtWith-
standing this man stood condemned for
perjury, Mr.. Riddle by actual expert
ence, and Judge Holt, upon satisfactory
grounds of belief, have fully realized
his usefulness in promoting by his
cooperation with public agents of JUS
tjce the caSue Of truth, on the occasion
of an investigation of national impOr-
tance; and also, that the latter inti-
mates his opinion that he had fairly
atOned to the offended law, and had
satisfactorily demonstrated his repen
tance. 1t is remarkable that Dunham
himself, in his petition (which pur-
ports to be in his own handwriting
mentions no such grounds, but trusts
mainly TO technicality. His petition
is as follows:
WASHINGTON, July ., 1S67.-To his
Excellency Andrew Johnson, Presi-
dent of the United States: The peti-
ton of Charles A. Durham respectfully
shows that in the month of January
last he was tried, convicted, and sem
fenced to the penitentiary for perjury,
alleged to have been committed before
the Judiciary Committee Of the House
Of Representatives, during the inVesti-
CATION by said committee of charges
against Jeff Davis Ofcomplicity in the
conspiracy to assassinate President
Lincoln.
That the perjury assigned in the in
dictment against your petitioner was
in having falsely testified that he had
no reason to doubt, and did not doubt,
the truthfulnesS of certain depOsitiOnS
made by two persons, called Campbell
and Snevel, at the time said deposi-
tions were given by them in the Bureau
of Military Justice, and in testifying
that he had last seen said Campbell in
c"@ada in June, 1865, ard said Snevel
III w Wilmington. n. c., in August 1860
That on the trial of yonI petitioner,
said Campbell and SneVel declared that
their real names were House and Rob
erts, and that the dispositions they had
made and sworn to in the Bureau Of
Military Justice were absolutely false
from beginningto end, and were known
to be 50 by your petitioner, and that
they were not at; said Campbell in
Canada in June, 1865, or said Snevel in
Wilmington in August, 1865, the places
at which your petitioner claimed to
have last seen them.
That it was entirely upon this testi-
mOny of said self-cOnvicted periurers
that your petitioner was convicted,
and that without the said testimony of
said persons, the jury before whom
your petitioner was tried could not
have found a verdict ofguilty.
Your petitioner further says that he
was tried and convicted by jury not
qualified to try him. That the jurors
before whom lie was so tried and con-
demned were illegally selected and
drawn, as decided by the Court in the
case of John II. Surratt-the manner
and form of selecting the jurors i'll the
case of Surratt, and your petitioner be-
ing identical-th in the discussion on
the opening Of the trial of Surratt, as to
the legal qualification of the jurors who
had been empanelled to try him, it
was contended by the prosecution and
decided by the Court, that said jurors
were informally and irregularly select
edand drawn, and that any verdict they
might render upon any trial would be
absolutely void.
Your petitioner further says that un-
der the rules and practice of the Su
preme Court of this District the above
informality in theselection and drawing
of a jury does not, after sentence under
a verdict found by such jury, cOnsti-
tute ground for a new trial or other
relief by the court, and that the only
remedy fOrsuch an illegal conviction
lies in an application to the Executive
for pardon. CHARLrS A. DUNHAM.
The above are all the papers which
have come to my knowledge in rela-
ton to the application for pardon.
When considered in connection with
other papers, adventitiOusly received,
they excite peculiar interest and COM
mand careful attention, and it is the
extraordinary gravity of the import of
these papers last mentioned in cOnnec-
ton with the source whence they came,
which makes it my delicate duty to
submit their contents for your studiOus
consideration, and suggest that some
proper disposition ought to be made of
them in consOnance with the dignity of
the Government and in justice to all
parties. [ introduce them as follows:
First. A communication addressed
to the President of the United States,
bearing date Washington, July 29th,
1867, and signed Charles A. Durham.
1t will be seen that this person, who
is testified to by gentlemen of official
and professional responsibility and OF
distinguished sagacity to be capable of
great and valuable service in the diSclO-
sure5 ofcrime, makes startling assevera-
tions directly against prominent men,
bers of the national Legislature.
WASHINGTON, July %, ITO his
EXcellency, Andrew Johnson, Presi-
dent of the United States: In applying
to your EXcellency for pardon, L had
not intended to offer any disclosures
concerning the plotting of your enc
mics against you which could be re-