and equanimity in the midst of the most exciting scenes. If it was possible at that period and at that place to have secured a fair trial, the method adopted was the most certain to secure it. That commission certainly had no desire to wantonly and recklessly inflict punishment upon a woman. It patiently investigated the case. If Mrs. Sur. ratt had not been guilty-if there had been any reasonable doubt of her guilt-she would have been acquitted, as some of the other accused persons were The Government never showed any disposition to deal severely with any of those guilty of crimes connected with the rebellion. Its military power was exercised mildly and humanely. It was only in a few instances of absolutely hideous crimes that the perpetrators suffered the extreme penalty.

"There is no ground for the complaint that the mili-
tary court was harsh, or unjust, or cruel
There is every

ground for the conclusion that it did its duty with judi-
cial calmness and perfect conscientious impartiality. It
found the proofs of guilt clear and incontestable, and ren-
dered judgment accordingly. . . .
. . There was an additional
guarantee of fairness of the proceeding against the assas-
sins of the President in the fact that General Hancock, a
disciplined, trained, and accomplished soldier, was in com-
mand at Washington at the time. His calmness and equi-
poise in the midst of excitement, cultivated by familiarity
with scenes of carnage in the whirlwind of scores of ter-
rific conflicts, would naturally inspire calmness in others.
Had the assassins been turned over to the civil courts for
trial, the result would doubtiess have been the same; and,
in that case, we would have heard a more just complaint,
perhaps, that, instead of a trial by an impartial military
tribunal, they were remanded to the mercies of an angry
and revengeful mob of passionate civilians, from whom it
was impossible to oblain a fair jury.”

This was the calm judgment upon this trial and the justice of Mrs. Surratt's conviction of one of the purest of men-one of the ablest lawyers of his time-after the thought and reflection of fifteen years.

THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN

PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND JUDGE HOLT.

A Paper read by GEN. HENRY L. BURNETT, late U. S. V., at a Meeting of the Commandery, State of New York, Military Order, Loyal Legion, April 3, 1889.

PERHAPS no incident connected with the trial of the assassins of President Lincoln created more general interest -was so much discussed and commented upon by the public press, or aroused deeper feeling of antagonism and bitterness between two public men, than the charge by President Johnson that the Judge-Advocate-General, Judge Holt, had withheld or suppressed the recommendation to mercy of Mrs. Surratt signed by five members of the commission, when he presented to him, the President, the record for his official action. While this charge had circulation and was asserted in the press during the time Mr. Johnson was occupying the presidential office, Mr. Johnson never openly made the charge until after his term had expired, some time in 1873.

No graver charge could be made against a public officer than this against Judge Holt, and, if true, no more cruel and treacherous betrayal of a public trust was ever committed by a man in high official position. It would be murderous in intent and effect. This charge rested, so far as human testimony went, upon the solemn assertion alone of President Johnson, and, if untrue, was one of the most cruel wrongs ever perpetrated by one man against another. I propose to give a brief abstract of the testimony produced by Judge Holt to disprove this charge, and also a statement of my connection with, and what little personal knowledge I had of, the matter.

In a communication addressed to the Washington Chronicle, dated August 25, 1873, Judge Holt gives a copy of a

letter addressed by him to the Secretary of War, on the 14th of that month, in which he sets forth evidence tending to disprove the charge originating with Andrew Johnson, of his suppression of the petition, signed by five of the nine members of the commission, recommending, in consideration of her age and sex, a commutation of the death-sentence of Mary E. Surratt to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. The petition read as follows: "To the President: The undersigned, members of the military commission appointed to try the persons charged with the murder of Abraham Lincoln, etc., respectfully represent that the commission have been constrained to find Mary E. Surratt guilty, upon the testimony, of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States, and to pronounce upon her, as required by law, the sentence of death; but, in consideration of her age and sex, the undersigned pray your Excellency, if it is consistent with your sense of duty, to commute her sentence to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary."

In a letter dated February 11, 1873, addressed to Hon. John A. Bingham, one of the special Judge Advocates during the trial, Judge Holt states: "In the discharge of my duty when presenting that record to President Johnson, I drew his attention to that recommendation, and he read it in my presence, and before approving the proceedings. and sentence. He and I were together alone when this duty on his part and on mine was performed. . . . The President and myself having, as already stated, been alone at the time, I have not been able to obtain any positive proof on the point, although I have been able to collect circumstantial 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. Still, in a matter so deeply affecting my reputation and official honor, I am naturally desirous of having the testimony in my possession. strengthened as far as practicable, and hence it is that I trouble you with this note. While I know that the question

1

1

of extending to Mrs. Surratt the clemency sought by the petition was considered by the President at the time mentioned, I have, in view of its gravity, been always satisfied that it must have been considered by the Cabinet also; but from the confidential character of Cabinet deliberations 1 have thus far been denied access to this source of information." He then proceeds to inquire whether or not he (Judge Bingham) had any conversation with Secretary Seward or Mr. Stanton in reference to this petition, and if so to please give him as nearly as he (Judge Bingham) could, all that Secretary Seward or Mr. Stanton had said upon the subject.

Judge Bingham replied under date of February 17, 1873, and among other things said:

"Before the President had acted upon the case, I deemed it my duty to call the attention of Secretary Stanton to the petition for the commutation of sentence upon Mrs. Surratt, and did call his attention to it, before the final decision of the President. After the execution, the statement which you refer to was made that President Johnson had not seen the petition for the commutation of the death-sentence upon Mrs. Surratt. I afterward called at your office, and, without notice to you of my purpose, asked for the record of the case of the assassins; it was opened and shown me, and there was then attached to it the petition, copied and signed as herein before stated. Soon thereafter I called upon Secretaries Stanton and Seward and asked if this petition had been presented to the President before the deathsentence was by him approved, and was answered by each of those gentlemen that the petition was presented to the President, and was duly considered by him and his advisers before the death-sentence upon Mrs. Surratt was approved, and that the President and Cabinet, upon such consideration, were a unit in denying the prayer of the petition; Mr. Stanton and Mr. Seward stating that they were present.

"Having ascertained the fact as stated, I then desired to make the same public, and so expressed myself to Mr.

Stanton, who advised me not to do so, but to rely upon the final judgment of the people."

In replying to this letter, Judge Holt very justly remarks: "It would have been very fortunate for me indeed could I have had this testimony in my possession years ago. Mr. Stanton's advice to you was, under all the circumstances of the case, most extraordinary.

"The asking you to rely upon the final judgment of the people,' and at the same time withholding from them the proof on which the judgment-to be just-must be formed, was a sad, sad mockery."

The next is a letter from ex-Attorney-General Speed, dated March 30, 1873, in which he says: "After the finding of the military commission that tried the assassins of Mr. Lincoln and before their execution, I saw the record of the case in the President's office, and attached to it was a paper, signed by some of the members of the commission, recommending that the sentence against Mrs. Surratt be commuted to imprisonment for life; and, according to my memory, the recommendation was made because of her

sex.

"I do not feel at liberty to speak of what was said at Cabinet meetings. In this I know I differ from other gentlemen, but feel constrained to follow my own sense. of propriety."

So that it is most clear from this statement of AttorneyGeneral Speed, unless he without interest or motive stated a most deliberate falsehood, that Judge Holt did not “withhold" or "suppress" the recommendation to mercy, but carried it with the record and "attached to it," as Mr. Speed says, and delivered it in the President's office. Certainly every intelligent mind will concede that this testimony of Mr. Speed utterly disposes of the charge of Andrew Johnson that Judge Holt "suppressed" or "withheld" this recommendation to mercy. If Mr. Johnson did not see it or read it when in his office, that was his neglect, his failure to perform a solemn official duty. But on this question of