Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1880-07-02
MISREPRESENTATION

The attempt Of the Baltimore 4pnerScnn tc
reproduce matter which has long been set.
tied and passed into history, for partizan
purposes, is simply too absurd and impotent
TO notice, and but for the notoriety it has
obtained, we should be disposed to treat il
with that silence which its falsehood as
well as its insignifcance demand.
1t is known fact that Gen. Hancock's
connection with the execution of Mrs. Sur.
raft was only that Of any other official who
had routine Of duties to perform, and in
the performance of this duty he at the time
said to one Of Mrs. Surratts counsel, the
following:
81 have been in many battle, and have
seen DEATH and mixed with it in disaster
and in victory. I've been in a living hell
of fire and shell and grape-shot, and, by!
I'd sooner be there ten thousand times over
than TO give the order this day for the exc
cution OF that poor woman. But l am a
soldier sworn to obey, and obey must"
1t is evident from the above that the per-
Torrance of this official duty was the most
bitter one Of his life, but like true soldier,
he had but to obey. Had Gen Hancock at
the time hesitated in the performance of his
duty in this respect, the american would
have been the first in the land to have de-
manded his dismissal from the army.
1t is also known that the Rev. Father
Walter, of st. Patricks church, Washing
ton, ID. c., who was Mrs. Surratt's confessor,
and attended her up to her last moments
upon the scaffold, has fully exonerated Gen.
Hancock from any blame Or censure, but
expressed in the most explicit words his
appreciation Of Gen. Hancock's kindness to
Mrs. Surratt. In this statement Father
Walter has been sustained in card by the
RI Rev. Bishop Kean, of Richmond. In
relation to the truth of the statements put
forth few days ago by the american,
claimed to have been obtained in an inter-
view with Mrs. Tonry, we append the fol-
lowing letter ofProf Tonfy, taken from the
Baltimore Sun;
Messrs. Editors In yesterdays Baltimore
| American there appeared an article headed
Mrs. Surratt's Death-What Her Daughter
has to Say of Hancock's Connection with
It." That article was not authorized, in
dorsed or given for publication by my wife
or myself. Mr.. E. p. Fulton, of the Balti-
more American, called at our house last
Thursday p M. Mrs. Tonry refused to give
him any statement for publication, and re-
ferred him to me. Later the same day Mr..
Fulton called again, when l also refused to
give him any statement for publication. Mr..
Fulton called third time, the next day,
and was a third time refused any item or
statement for publication. | did not talk to
him "thus unreservedly on the question"
as is asserted in the article; quite the con-
trary Mr. Fulton has had but these three
interviews with either my wife or myself in
which this subject was ever mentioned.
1t is not true that said, 81 rely upon you
to report us correctly" What | did say to
Mr.. Fulton was: AZ wish you distinctly
to understand that you have no right and
are not authorized to publish anything, one
way or the other, except what | give you
over my own signature" With this state
ment on my part the public may believe
just as much Of the article in the Baltimore
american, which is against Gen. Hancock,
or Of the article in the New York World of
January 8, 1890, which is in favor of General
Hancock, as may be convenient Both art-
Giles are represented as the result of inter-
views. In future hope the gentlemen con-
nected with the press will not put them
selves to the inconvenience of calling either
upon me or my wife on this subject, nor do
we propose to take any notice of the many
statements that will probably be made by
persons who know not of what they speak,
Respectfully,
June 81, 1880. VIM p. ToNRY.