Year: 1862

|


away, 1t would be very innocent thing, and


no Senator would think of expeIing the Sena


tor from Indiana from his seat. Unfortunate
| ly, the letter l1aS written. An Indictment fol
| murder, permit me to say to the Senator from
| New L ork, with the homicide clause out
| would be very harmless piece of paper.
Mr.. President, l have briefly considered to
| whom this letter was addressed-to desper-
| ate traitor. 1t commended to his fullest con-
ndence one who entertained tratoreuS pur-
| pose, and the matter of the letter was most
reasonable. Here is the whole case, and it
sounds of treason in every part


What was the position and relat ion to the
Government of the Union of him who wrote
the letter /! He was a Senator, one of the
high officers of the Governments sworn,
confidential adviser of the President. What
was his plain and bounded duty j.? To stand
by the Government, with all his energies and
power. To be vigilant, constant, and untiring
In his efforts to crush the rebellion, and to
bring to punishment its leading traitors. This
toGS ms duty. Can it be possible that loyal
Senator could so far forget this high duty as
to hold communication with the rebellious
government, touching the purchase of an I'M
proved fre-arm IL cannot be possible. No
loyal citizen would have done it much less
loyal Senator. Forgetful of his duties, un-
faithful to his senatorial trust, he is no longer
worthy of q seat in this Senate.





the honorable Senator from New Y ork | must
say that in my judgement they have taken a
narrow and technical view OF this case. They
with the Senator from Indiana as one on his
trial for treason, and themselves as Judges or
Jurors sworn to try him under all the technical
rules OF presumptions and reasonable doubts,
applicable in such cases. Herein they greatly
err. We sit here in trial upon the Senator
from Indiana, not to pronounce Judgment a.
galnSt HIM for the crime of treason, but to say
by our votes, under the facts before u.s. if he
be loyal and safe man to sit in this high
council of State


Mr.. Cowan. l desire to ask my honorable
colleague, If Mr.. Bright is not guilty OF trea-
son, what is he guilty Off


Mr.. Wilmot. | will answer my colleague
by saying that it | were called upon to-day to
give any definition of his offense | should
pronounce it treason; but | am frank to admit
that If | were sitting as juror, there are
those doubts hanging about the case that
would make me hesitate TO pronounce verdict
of guilty but a Senator, will not hesitate
as to the vote L shall give here. The conduct
OF the Senator from Indiana, judged by the
facts and circumstances surrounding the case,
looks like treason still | might not be pre-
pared so to pronounce, sitting as a Juror on
his trial. | know not under what circumstan-
ces OF haste, or rthoughtlessness, the letter was
written. These, if they existed, were for the
Senator from Indiana to show. There may
not have existed at the time the letter was
written, that deliberate and wicked purpose
essential to the technical crime OF treason.
We know not. We have the letter before u.s.
1t 1cGs wrtHen 10 q traitor, and for TRAITOR and
to further reasonable end What more does
my colleague want : The Senator on trial has
given us no facts or mitigating circumstances
whatever. As juror, | might even refuse on
the case, as it stands, to pronounce the verdict
of guilty of high treason. But when the case
is presented to me as Senat tor-iS the Sena- |
tor from Indiana safe man to sit here Is
his loyalty and fidelity to the Government
justly obnoxious to strong and we'll grounded |
impeachment Can he be trusted to advise |
the President, and to share in our delibera- |
tonS, in this crisis of public affairs To these |
Inquiries can have no doubt whatever. l |
shall vote to expel the Senator from Indiana
from his seat in the Senate.


What it is right to do IN this case, the SEN
ate should do promptly and .fearfessly. A IL |
midity, bordering on cowardice, paraIyzes the |
arm of the Government. Treason stalks a. |
broad in open day We must vindicate the |
of the Senate, and our own selfre-
Spect; we must give to the people an assur-
ance that here at least, infdelity and disloyal-
ty meet with speedy and condign punishment.


Now, sir, it seems to me that have stated |
the whole case. [ put the case upon the re-
cord and upon nothing else. | place it upon
the Senator's letter of the lSt of March, [ |
take that letter and the circumstances of the
country at the time, the position of the Sena-
tor, the position of the man to whom the letter
was written, the position of the man for whom
it was written, and the errand upon which he
went, and say the facts are conclusive and
against the Senator from Indi-
ana. There is no possible escape from the
conclusion. 1t is a legal maxim that Il man is
responsible for the natural and necessary con-
of his act. What did the Senator
DO He commented one traitor to another.
md the errand upon which he commended him
vas by the admission of all REASONABLE erraud;
it was to give to him improved fire-ar
Can it be possible, as | asked before, that a
oyal Senator would do this Sir, suppose
your Commanding General had written such
etter, would there have been any doubt as TO
lis completely with the traitors? The Senator
rom Indiana occupies position in this Gov
ernment as high and responsible in many re-
pects as the Commanding General OF your
Army. Nay, sir, in dignity of character he
occupied position second only to the Presi-
lent of the nation. Suppose he had written
uch letter, would you have had any doubt
IS to his completely with the traitors Would
'ou have had any doubt that he had at least
orgotten his duty to this Government Sir,
N impeachment could have rested on the
etter and to-day have serious doubts to
What would be the result of the tial of the
senator from Indiana before an impartial jury.


FAIR PLAYA son of Erin having hired his
services to cut some ice, was asked if he
ouId use the cross-cut saw. He replied that
e sscould surely He was sent accordingly,