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

person is detained by him as a prisoner
under authority of the President, further
proceedings under the writ of habeas cor
pus shall be suspended by the judge or
court having issued such writ, so long as
the said suspension by the President shall
remain in force, and said rebellion con-
tinue."
The order to General Hancock expressly
states ''that the writ of hdbeds corpus has
been heretofore suspended" and reaffirm-
ing and enforcing the suspension, instead
of having been defiant the Executive
was simply performing duty imposed upon
him by law of Congress. When the re-
turn was made to the Criminal Court all
further proceedings were dismissed by the
Judge, as the law directed. Even with re-
spect to this question, Judge Holt has en-
deayOred to shrink from the responsibility
OF having favored the order which he now
designates presidential mandate"
1t is apparent from review of all the
witnesses introduced by Judge Holt, who
may be deemed credible or who require
notice, that if he has established anything,
he has proved that the petition was at
tached TO the record priort to the Presidents
approval Ofthe sentence. In his letter to
the Secretary Of War he says:
''There were twelve officers of the Govern
ment, of rank and reputaton-One of them a
member Of the Cabinet-whO, before any action
had been taken by the President, knew that
this petition had been addressed TO him, and
was attached to the record"
In addressing Judge Bingham he as
sUmes, as a matter of course, that that gen
fla,,aan hot "a
the President, in consideration of her age
and sex, to commute Mrs. Surratt's death
sentence into confinement in the peniten-
tiary for life, was signed by five members
Of the court, and was attached to the re-
cord of the trial.
In his reply Judge Bingham declares that
the petition, as drawn by himself, swas
copied by member of the commission,
and signed by majority of the commits
sion, and the copy so signed attached to the
official record
Mr.. Wright, chief clerk of the Bureau of
military Justice, is "quite positive" that
the petition was attached to the sheets con-
tanning the findings and sentences. 1t hay-
ing been shown by Judge Hollis witnesses
that the recommendation was attached to
the record before the case was submitted
to the Executive, it only remains to call
attention to one fact, as conclusive as it is
significant.
During the progress of the trial Mr..
Benn Pittman, 'reeOrder to the commits
sion," formally applied to the Judge AdvO-
cate General, who had, with such great zeal
and efficiency, prosecuted the case on be-
half of the Government, for the privilege
publishing the proceedings in book form.
On the day of the termination of the trial
the desired permission was accorded in the
following terms:
BUREAU OF MILITARY JUsTICE, June 80, 1865.
BY authority of the Secretary of War, the pub
LEGATION OF the work referred to in the foregoing
letter will be permitted on the condition that it
be made without cost to the Government, and
that it be prepared and issued under the super
intendence of Colonel Burnett, who will be re-
spOnsible to this bureau for its strict accuracy.
j. HOLT, Judge Advocate General.
The following certificate, dated three
months after the adjournment of the court,
shows that Colonel Burnett performed the
duty devolved upon him by the order Of his
chief:
JUDGE ADVOCATES OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF
THE OHIO, CINCINNATI, October 2, lS65.-In
obedience to the directions OF the Secretary OF
War, through the Judge Advocate General, |
have superintendent the compilation and publ
of the cOnSpiratOrs at Washington for the aSsaS-
sinatiOn OF the late President, Abraham Lin
coin, and the attempted assassination of the Sec
retary of State, Mr.. Seward, other members OF
the cabinet, and Lieutenant General Grant, and
hereby certify to its faithfulness and accuracy.
II. l.. BURNETT,
Judge Advocate Department of the Ohio, and
Special Judge Advocate of the Commission.
With this official Endorsement of sits
faithfUtness and accuracy" given under a
responsibility more keenly felt, and, per-
haps, more vigorously enforced in the army
than in any other branch of the public
service, one would reasonably suppose that
there could possibly have been no omission
of any part of the record filed in the Bureau
of Military Justice. Yet the petition does
not appear IN connection qrith the findings
and sentences, nor IS 10 to be found IN ana
part Of the UOiJHHe, although, in addition to
the proceedings of the court, and the APP
| prOval Of the sentences, the book contains
an appendix, giving, among other matters
| pertaining to the assassination, afiidayitS
made on the 18th of August, 1865, more
! than a month after the execution, and dia-
grams of the locality of FOrd's Theater, and
| of its stage. The recommendation, there
fore, was not only withheld from the Presi
dent, but is here withheld from the printed
| record. If, as Judge Holt asserts, it was a
crime to suppress or conceal it from the
President, was it not also a crime designed
ly to omit this important page from his all
thoriEed version Of the trial? 1t cannot be
claimed that the omission was accidental
for, according to Judge Hollis witnesses, the
paper, as soon as signed, was attached to the
record. .....
Besides, five may accept reinstatement of
| the Judge Advocate General, the charge
against which he now attempts to defend
| himself was made ''sOOn after the execution
of Mary Z. Surratt," and his attention hav-
ing been necessarily called to the subject,
it was his imperative duty to supply the
| omission or to make the correction. 1t is
| doubtful, however, whether, had not the eX-
! istence of the petition by some means be-
| come known to certain public Journals it
would ever have been divulged, or care
| fully attached to the papers by ''patent eye
| let's to become confirmation strong OF
| Judge Hollis 'sinnOcence" of the ''cruel inn
| putatiOn' under which he has been content
so long to lie.
1t being absolutely certain that if the pc
| tition was attached to the original record
! before it was submitted to the President, it
/ is not to be found in the printed record
authorized by Judge Holt and certified to
by Col. Burnett, Special Judge Advocate
of the commission, the question arises,
which of the two is authentic and genuine?
If the record in possession of the Judge
Advocate General is true, then that is false
which he has given to the public. If, on
the other hand, the record published with
his official sanction is true, then that in his
bureau is false necessarily. Judge Holt is
at liberty to accept either alternative, and
to escape as he may the inevitable cOnelu-
sion that he did not only fail to submit the
petition TO the President, but suppressed
and withheld it from the official history OF
the most important trial in the annals OF
| the nation. ANDREW JOHNSON.
WASHINGTON, d. c., Nov. IL, 1873.