Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-11-19

"After the execution, the statement TO which
yOureier was made, that President johnson had
not seen the petition for the Communication of the
ueath-sentence upon Mrs. Surratt. L afterward
called at your office, and, without notice to you
OF my purpose, asked for the record in the case
OF the asSassins. 1t was opened and shown to
me, and there was then attached to it the petit
tlon, copied and signed as hereinbefore stated.
Soon thereafter called upon Secretaries Stanton
presented TO the President before The deGthSeBtence
loaS by him approved; and 9cdS GnsUered bg each
q those gentlemen that the petition prosecuted TO
zee President, and 1cds daily considered by him and
htS advisers before the dedth-seRteace upon Mrs.
SurrGtt lodS approved, and that the President and
tte Cabinet, upon such consideration, acre unit
IN denying the prayer Of the petition; Mr..
Stdnton and Mr.. Seicdrd stating that they lcere
present.
"Having been the special Judge Advocate for
the United States, and as such having made the
argument in the trial of the assassins, i thought
IL due to myself, and to others as well, to know
II the petition drawn by me in behalf OF Mrs.
Surratt had been considered by the President.
Having ascertaned the fact as stated, then de-
sired to make the public, and expressed my
self to Mr. Stanton, lvhO dduised not TO dc so,
out TO rely upon The final judgment Of the peo-
pie"
Mr.. Bingham here distinctly asserts that
he was assured by Secretaries Seward and
Stanton that the "petition was presented
to the President, and was duly considered
by him and his advisers before the death
sentence of Mrs. Surrat was approved
That the information Judge Bingham al
legeS to have received from Secretaries
Seward and Stanton cannot be correct is
evident from the facts. In his letter to
Judge Bingham Judge Holt states that he
IIOt) presented the record to me; that we
were alone at the time, and that read the
petition "befOre approving the proceedings
and sentence. 1.-THE papers, therefore, were
considered and approved by me in the pres
ence only of Judge Holt, who himself wrote
the approval for my signature, and, after
had affixed to it my name, took away with
him the record. This was the first and on
ly time | saw the papers prior to the execu-
ton; and, as my approval was given, under
the circumstances above related, in the at
ternoon of Wednesday, the 9Th day of July,
1865; and as Immediately afterward the
record must have been taken by Judge
Holt to the War Department, where, by an
order of the Adjutant General of the same
date, the approval was promulgated, and
Gen. Hancock commanded to cause the
sentences ''to be duly eXecuted;" and as no
Cabinet meeting was held thereafter until
Friday, the 18th day of July, 1865, (the day
of the execution it is impossible that Mrs.
Sunatt'S case could have been submitted
| by the President to the Cabinet ''before the
death sentence was by him approved" If
| the case had been considered by the Cabin
ct, is it probable that Mr.. Harlan would
have altogether forgotten the fact, or, if
absent, would have failed to hear it men
toned by his colleagues? Those who
knew Mr.. Stanton's sagacity will find it
difficult to believe that he advised Judge
Bingham ''tO rely upon the final judgment
of the people" and at the same time with
hold from them all information upon the
subject at issue-advice which Judge Holt
calls 'fsad, sad mOckery," but which, if
really given, would be better described by a
less sentimental expression. The years
which have interviewed seem not only to
have weakened Mr.. Bingham'S respect for
this advice, but also seriously to have
impaired his recollection Of the words
of which his ears were the recipients.
In his search for testimony, Judge Holt
has succeeded III discovering only one wit
ness who says that he saw the record of
the case, with the petition attached, in the
Presidents Office. This witness is the
Hon. James Speed, then AttOrney-General,
who is undoubtedly mistaken in his state
ments; for, as already shown, the findings
and sentences of the court were submitted
on the 9Th of July, he and. l being alone;
were then and there approved by the Exec
utive, and taken by the Judge Advocate
General to the War Department, where on
the same afternoon, the order to carry them
into effect was issued. Mr.. SpeeddOubtless
saw the record, but it must have been in
the Department of War, not in the EXecu-
tive office. In this connection Mr.. Har-
lan's letter has significance and value for,
in referring to an informal discussion by
Cabinet members upon the subject, Cat
which he thinks Mr.. Speed was presently,
he positively states that neither at that
time, nor at any other, was any part of the
| record of the trial, the decision of the
| court, orr the recommendation for clemency"
read III his presence.
The informal discussion to which Mr..
| Harlan refers, took place on Friday, July
| Z; 1866, the day of the execution, and two
days after the approval of the sentence.
In regard to the letters Of Messrs. Joseph
Wright and Frank I. Howe, Judge Holt
assumes that from them it may be con-
| cluded with absolute certainty thai the
petition or recommendation in favor of Mrs.
| Surratt was attached to the record of the
trial of the assassins when it was received
at the bureau from the court that it was
| so attached when took the record fromthe
bureau for the purpose Of presenting it to
| the President for his action, and that when
| the record was returned to the bureau from
the Presidents through the Adjutant Cen
erals office, the petition continued attached
| to it as before
The letter of Mr.. Wright is dated jan
uary s, and that of Mr.. Howe January Is,
1868, At that time Mr.. Wright was the
| Judge Advocate Generals chief clerk, Ga
! position he still holds,) and Mr.. Howe Oc-
| cupied place in the same bureau. Their
| letters were written some two and a half
wears after the execution of the aSsasalns
and five years from their date are intro
duced to the public as important features
| in Judge Holt's defense. Mr.. Howe's let
| ter il merely an Endorsement of that signed
by his then chief clerk, Mr. Wright, and it
| is not therefore necessary to make further
mention of it in this communication.
Mr.. Wright replies to his chiefs inquiry
| (Which is not published) as follows;
"when the record first came 20 this bureau
| from the court or from the War Department, it
was received b. she messenger, as all other
records aye, and, think, directed him to your
ToOm, or to that of the officer specially charged
| with reviewing records, and In the presence OF
! Mr.. Howe, and perhaps other clerks, (hut my
| memory is not positive about othersl, / exam
| med the findings and sentence, the sheets con-
| tanning which were not fastened together as the
volumes of the record, but were attached to each
| other by q small yellow ribbon. | am quite pos
| tive that the recommendation of five members
! of the court for clemency in the case of Mrs.
Surratt was written on one of the sheets thus
| attached together, and that this sheet, which
| was legal cap, correspondent in all respects with
| the other paper of the record. Soon after the
trial, on receiving, as l understood, 8. MESA ge
| that the President was ready to consider the
| case, you took the pQFtIon of the record de-
| scribed as attached together by a ribbon, and
! which contained the findings, sentence, and
| recommendations to mercy, 10 the President
Yourself in person for his action. and on the re-
| turn Of the record to the bureau from the Adm
| tant Generals Office, which took place after Che
| PRONUNCIATION of the proceedings, the approval
| of the President, with his order for the eXeeU-
| tOn of the sentence, "a your handwriting, signed
| by him, appeared written on the leaf of the
| record, &c above set forth, intervening between
| the close Of the last order OF the court and the
| recommendation 10 eiemency. The leaves were
| then attached together when first seen by me.
| The page On which the signature of the Presi-
dent, together with the greater part of his order
| of approval was written was confronted by the
next page, on which the recOmiAe nGation to
! clemency appeared, the leaves having been
fastened together, as IS uSIlb, at the ends; this
brought these two pages directly face to face to
| each otkeT,%
4 tarlul reader of the above letter car
not fail to observe the accuracy with which
Mr.. Wright relates every particular connect