Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-10-24
TIE A $

We publish in another column q com
m~unication from BARBOUR LEWIS, Esq.
fortified by q letter from Lieut.. WV. H
HUGO, 18th U. IS. Infantry, which to
gether impugn in some respects the cor
rectness Of the facts stated by Us in re
gard to the case OF MILLIREN.
Mr.. LEWIS desired the publication o
his letter and that Of the Lieutenant, OF
Sunday last; but as he brought them Il
US too late on Saturday, heretained them
until Tuesday, to give them more c0nsid.
Grafton at his leisure.
The first matter in respect to which
MrLEwIs insists that we were mistaken
is IS to the amendment, made by him,
Of the RETURN Of Lieut.. HUGO, to the
writ Of Hsbeas Corpus. We stated that
it was made in the Lieutensut's absence,
and without his knowledge or consent.
We should have said that We
were 50 Informed. That officer
states, 10 the letter which Mr.. LEWIS fur
nishes that it was made after c~ousulta-
ton with himself, and with his full con-
c~urrencs.
II We fell into any error in stating any
matter whatever, 70 the detriment OF the
counsel, We sincerely regret it, however
innocently it was done. II we erred in
this case, it was not for want OF inquiry.
We CHANGED to be present in the court.
room, for the first time hen the csse
was under consideration, on the forenoon
of the 18th Of October, and heard the dis
cussion that occurred. When the Court
had ordered that the return should set
out the facts constituting the supposed
offence, Rnd that this should be done
within an hour, we passed that hour
in the room Of the District Attorney, with
several other counsel, by whom the mat
ter was much discussed. Part ofthe time,
Lieut.. HUGO was present; and we heard
il repeatedly stated, by gentlemen Of the
bar, thst the amendment TO the return
was msde in his absence, and without his
knowledge. If we had afterwards been
called on to testify, we should certainly
have stated that we heard him say so.
Since reading his letter, We could not do
that, although it is yet strongly our i'm
preston and such is the impression o.
others.
We are always exceedingly csrefuino
70 make statements st random, or upon
what we do not consider certain and &C.
curate information and il We make any
erroneous assertion, we will eheerfully
make amends. We must, therefore,
when the accuracy Of anything we state
is i~mpeached, At least show, how much
soever we may regret the necessity for
doing so, that we have had reasonable
grounds for making the statement.
We are positively assured, this morn
ing, by a gentlemen, who is not a law
yer, but who wa present sll the time ST
the conversation on the 18th instant,
that Lieut.. HUGO told him that the
amendment was made in his absence,
and without his knowledge, (of which
Mr.. WALLACE had said sOmswhatin the
Court: that the Lieutenant went to the
Courtroom, to have II stricken out, and
upop returning said that Mr.. LEWIS had
threatened him that il he did 80, he
would report him to General THOMAS
that he Jour infOrmant) told the lieu
tenant that he would state the whole
matter 10 the Judge, and that he did 80,
in the presence Of the Lieutenant, bu'
not in his hearing, as it was in open
Court. and spoken in a low tone; |
that be then beckoned the Lieu
tenant who came forward, and the
said that the amendment would
not prove Of importance, and might
a. well be left to stand; but advised the
Lieutenant to be careful that the facts
be stated correctly in the new re
turn. We also learn from another gen
tleman that while the new return wa
being written, the Lieutenant told Mr.
LEWIS that Lehsd uotsaid that there wa
armed violation ofMILLIKEN's parole.
We all knew that the Lieutenant went
into lie Court room Tor the purpose o.
having the amendment 10 the return
stricken out; and We believe that the
impression Of all was that he had moi
authorized il 20 be made: although IL
have been sufficient reason, that
be had inadvertently erred in e-Onsenting
70 It. as was evident when now required
10 state the facts aud circumstances
far Is cur own recollection goes
should not venture TO rely upon ii
with sufficient confidence, for it is not
sufficiently certain, TO say that It was not
IN the latter ground alone that he pro
posed 10 have the amendment taken
rom the record. We give the state
nents on both sides, and having vindi-
,ated ourselves, desire 10 say no more.
MmLIKEN's parole was his solemn oh
lgstion "not to take up arms against the
Government Of the United States Until
properly released from this obligation - :
nd by the parole he was permitted 70 ,
to his home, not to be disturbed I
y the United States authorities so long d
s be observes this obligation and obsys a
be laws in force where be may reside 7
He was arrested, by order Of Genera d
'HoMAs, on the oath Of August, 1857 y
IN the 18th Of September be fled hi 4
etition for g writ Of Habeas Corpus, and +.
issued, General THOMAS having, Oh a
he 9Th Of September, ordered him 10 be !.
to LRGrshge, and confined there n
nth a Military Commission could be \
for his trial. IA
On the 18th of September, General b
HOMAs ordered Lieut.. HUGO to obey il
writ, and what return to make on it
ae business and duty Of the Lieutenant Of
are to make return by what warrant in
d authority he held the prisoner. ; n