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


the Official Record of the Trial?
From the Washington Chronicle.
In your paper of the 18th August last,
Joseph Holt, Judge Advocate General of
the Army, lays before the '.loyal public"
certain correspondence with respect to the
case of Mary E. Surratt, executed on the
18th day of July, 1865, as one of the assas-
sins of President Abraham Lincoln. Judge
Hollis sO-called vindication did not reach
me until some weeks after its publication,
and reply on my part has been delayed
by sickness and other causes, which need
not here be mentioned.
Eight years have elapsed since the Amer
lean people were called upon to mourn the
death of Mr.. Lincoln, whose unselfish de-
votion to the Union and genuine sympathy
with the masses have made his name a
household word, not only in the North, but
in the once rebellious South. During this
long interval Judge Holt has remained
silent, and only at this late day attempts to
meet the charge (made, as he declares in
his letter to the Secretary of War, soon af-
ter the execution of Mary E. Surratt) that
he withheld from the President, when pre-
senting the record of her trial, "a petition,
signed by five members of the court, recon-
mending, in consideration of her age and
sex, a Communication of her death sentence
to Imprisonment for life in the penitentia-
! ry." Having at last gathered what he terms
the 'proofS of his innocence" he offers
them for the consideration of the War De
partment, and at the same time seeks con-
ISOLATION in the fact that, notwithstanding
the allegation made against him, the Presi-
dent ordered no court for his trial, had no
charges preferred, and made no open accu-
Sation, but to the close of his Administra-
ton continued with him the same official
relations as before.
Without giving the reasons which at that
time would, in all probability, have ope-
rated against any development of the facts
in this case, the question suggests itself
why Judge Holt, in this attack upon his
''official integrity" did not himself demand
court of inquiry? All his witnesses were
| then living, the circumstances attending
the execution of the conspiratOrs were
fresh in the public mind, his reputation was
| at stake, and must have been as dear to
him then as now. Yet hesOught no vindi-
cation, but has preferred to wait until the
memory of friends, dimmed by years, could
be made to give him the benefits OF its
| doubts and uncertainties. Well versed in
the law, he has evidently weighed the adj
vantage which delay would give him; skill
| ed in sophistry, he uses to the best advan-
tage all that he considers proved by his
friends, and even CONSTITUTES my forbearance
as evidence in his favor.
Feeling, however, that his long delay de-
mands some explanation, the Judge AdvO-
| cate General refers the Secretary of War to
his letter to Judge Bingham for the reason
| his defense was not submitted at an earlier
date. A careful examination of that letter
ELECTS only the following sentence touching
the cause Of his extraordinary prOcrastina-
ton:
The President and myself having, as already
stated, been alone at the time, l have not been
able TO obtain any positive proof on the point,
though have been able to collect circumstan-
tial evidence enough to satisfy any unbiased
mind that the recommendation was seen and
considered by the President when he examined
| and approved the proceedings and sentence of
the court.
What .:circumstantial evidence Judge
| Holt possessed at the time he penned the
above letter, it is difficult to infer, as at
that date February II, 1879 he seems
| only to have collected the statements of
| his chief clerk and another employee in
| his bureau, and of j. George Butler, spas
| tor of St. Paul's Church." In view of the
! unsatisfactory nature of this statement, as
affecting the point at issue, it is not at all
| surprising that Sin matter so deeply af-
| tecting his reputation and official honor.
| he was naturally DESTROYS Of having the
| testimony in his possession strengthened,
as far as practicable" by letter from the
| Hon. John 4. Bingham, whom, by author
| ity Of the War Department, he had desig-
| mated as an assistant in Mrs. Surratt'S pros
| ecutiOn. But does it not seem passing
| strange" that, though Secretaries Seward
and Stanton lived years atterward-the one
| dying as late as October 10, 1872, and the
other closing his mortal career December
"a, 1S69-Judge Holt never obtained from
| either Of them evidence so essential to his
| reputation? So far as they are concerned
| he is compelled to rely upon the hearsay
| declarations Of Mr.. Bingham, who, al
though not implicated in the charge, yet
"thOught it due to himself, and others, as
WELL" to make inquiries upon the subject.
In view of his own willful neglect, it Ger
tainly seems neither fair nor Just that the
Judge Advocate General should censure Mr..
Stanton, now in his grave, for a silence
which, during his. life time, that officer
never asked him TO break.
| IlClC NCO VI VIC lilCillutlo VI lllt
then Cabinet MesSrs, Mccullough,
Welles, Denison, Speed and Harlan. OF
these Judge Holt has only brought before
the public Messrs. Harlan and Speed.
| Why he has not called upon their colleagues
he does not explain, or, if he has called
upon them, why he has not stated the fact
and given the result of his inquiries, is left
entirely to conjecture.
| NJ, ITop1or, in, sonk b 10
lections, remembers ''distinctly the discus
sion of the question of the Communication of
the sentence of death pronounced on Mrs.
| SurTatt by the court, to Imprisonment for
life, had by members of the Cabinet in the
presence of President Johnson" ''can not
state positively whether this occurred at a
regular or a called meeting, or whether it
was at an accidental meeting OF several
| members" but .the impression on his
mind is that the only discussion of the sub
iect which he ever heard, occurred in the
laSt-named mOde;" and he then details the
remarks of one the Cabinet officers, who,
| when he (Alr. lIarlan) entered the room,
was addressing the President, in an
earnest conversation on the question
whether the sentence ought to be modified
on account of the sex Of the condemned"
He declares, and is ''pOSitiUe on this point, "
that ''nO part of the record of the trial,
the decision of the court, or tie rec0nsp,el1-
ddtiOR of cIemellc5t aoQs at tkGt tiGe, or
euer at gag tame, read IN his presence" and
states that the question as to Mrs. Surratt' {
case 1c0S nerer submitted to the Cabinet .fOI
q formal cote.
This constitutes all that Mr.. Harlan re-
members, although, in requesting his recol-
lectiOls upon the subject, Judge Holt very
considerably furnished him with Mr.. Ring
hams letter,
In these statements of Mr.. Harlan, Judge
Holt finds Significance and value" in the
far-fetched inference that, there being ''iI
no part of the record the slightest allusiOr
to the question of clemency to Mrs. Sur
raft, except IN the petition signed s,g M
members Of the court" tho lnere mention
Of her sex as a reason tor q mitigation o
her sentGnea unnecessarily involved an at
iiTInation that the petition itself had alsC
been examined" The absurdity Of thi.
conclusion, coming from one who occupies
a legal position so prominent, can only bt
justified upon the theory tilaI 'tdrownine
men catch at straws.e III passing upon The
case Of a woman sentenced to undergo tn,
extreme penalty of the law, the simple fac
that she is woman appeals to sympath,
and suggests Inercy, though there may no
| ln son ,t Ill af ssaf