tions, declaring the war to be one for the restoration of the Union, and not to break up the "institution" of a State. Q.—Did he counsel any other mode in that speech of resisting usurpations of arbitrary power, except by free discussion and the ballot-box? A. He did not. Q.-Were any denunciations of the officers of the army indulged in by him, or any offensive epithets applied to them? A.—He occasionally used the words "the President and his minions," but I did not understand him to use them in connection with the army. It was not in that connection. It was in connection with arbitrary arrests. Q.-Do I understand you to say that the denunciations to which you refer were chiefly in reference to arbitrary arrests? A.-My recollection is that that is the connection in which they were used. He applied some pretty strong epithets to spies and informers, whom he did not seem to like very much. Q. Do you remember the connection in which some words to this effect were used at the close of the speech, with regard to the possibility of a dissolution of the Union, and of his own determination in regard to such a contingency? A.-I could not give the exact words. I remember the metaphor, that "he would not be a priest to minister at the altar of disunion." He was speaking about the Union, and his attachment to it. I can not give the words of the metaphor. Q. What counsel did I give at the close of my speech upon that subject? A. He invoked the people under no circumstances to surrender the Union. Q. Do you remember any rebuke, in connection with the Butler County case, of men who hurrahed for "Jeff Davis?" A. Yes, I do. He denounced the applause of Davis. Q.-Was any thing said, in that speech, in reference to the war, except in condemnation of what he claimed to be the policy upon which it was now being waged, and as a policy which he insisted could not restore the Union, but must end, finally, in disunion? A.-I can only give my understanding. I do not know about inferences people might draw. I understood his condemnation of the war to be launched at its perversion from its original purpose. The Court here adjourned to meet at 4 o'clock P. M. of the same day. The Court met pursuant to adjournment. 41 O'CLOCK P. M. The witnesses, Locky Harper, J. T. Irvine, and Frank H. Hurd, summoned for the defense, not having appeared, the Judge-Advocate stated that if it would avoid an adjournment he would admit that they, if present, would, under oath, testify substantially the same as Hon. S. S. Cox. Thereupon the accused stated that he would close his defense, and offer no further testimony. The Judge-Advocate stated that he did not propose to offer any further testimony. The accused then read to the Commission a statement (of which Mr. Vallandigham has a copy). [The statement here referred to does not appear in the record of the trial. It is as follows:] PROTEST OF MR. VALLANDIGHAM. Arrested without due "process of law," without warrant from any judicial officer, and now in a military prison, I have been served with a "charge and specifications," as in a Court-martial or Military Commission. I am not in either "the land or naval forces of the United States, nor in the militia in the actual service of the United States," and therefore am not triable for any cause, by any such Court, but am subject, by the express terms of the Constitution, to arrest only by due process of law, judicial warrant, regularly issued upon affidavit, and by some officer or Court of competent jurisdiction for the trial of citizens, and am now entitled to be tried on an indictment or presentment of a Grand Jury of such Court, to speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State of Ohio, to be confronted with witnesses against me, to have compulsory process for witnesses in my behalf, the assistance of counsel for my defense, and evidence and argument according to the common laws and the ways of Judicial Courts. And all these I here demand as my right as a citizen of the United States, and under the Constitution of the United States. But the alleged "offense" is not known to the Constitution of the United States, nor to any law thereof. It is words spoken to the people of Ohio in an open and public political meeting, lawfully and peaceably assembled, under the Constitution and upon full notice. It is words of criticism of the public policy of the public servants of the people, by which policy it was alleged that the welfare of the country was not promoted. It was an appeal to the people to change that policy, not by force, but by free elections and the ballot-box. It is not pretended that I counseled disobedience to the Constitution, or resistance to laws and lawful authority. I never have. Beyond this protest I have nothing further to submit. CINCINNATI, OHIO, May 7, 1863. C. L. VALLANDIGHAM. The Judge-Advocate stated that he had no reply to make to the statement of the accused. In so far as it called in question the jurisdiction of the Commission, that question had been decided by the authority convening and ordering the trial, and he was not called upon to discuss it, nor had the Commission been willing at any time to entertain it. In so far as any implications or inferences, designed or contemplated in the statement, of his right of counsel, and to have witnesses summoned for his defense, were involved, the Judge-Advocate had summoned such witnesses as the accused had requested, and he had had the benefit of three lawyers of his own choice as counsel, who had, however, remained continuously in an adjoining room during the continuance of the trial-the accused, himself, for some reason unknown, not having introduced them before the Commission, though the Commission had expressly authorized him to do so, and had adjourned to permit his obtaining their presence. The facts alleged in the specification were to be decided upon the evidence before the Commission, and he believed it unnecessary to comment thereon. The question of the criminality of the facts alleged, if proved, was also a question purely for the Commission, and which the Judge-Advocate deemed it unnecessary to enforce by argument. He, therefore, without further comment, submitted the case to the consideration of the Commission. The Commission was duly cleared for deliberation. General Orders, No. 68. HEAD-QUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE OHIO, I. At a Military Commission which convened at Cincinnati, Ohio, on the 6th day of May, 1863, pursuant to Special Orders No. 135, of April 21, 1863, current series, from these Headquarters, and of which Brigadier-General Robert B. Potter, U. S. Vols., is President, was arraigned and tried, Clement L. Vallandigham, a citizen of the State of Ohio, on the following charge and specification of charge, to-wit: CHARGE. Publicly expressing, in violation of General Orders No. 38, from Head-quarters Department of the Ohio, sympathy for those in arms against the Government of the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion. SPECIFICATION. In this, that the said Clement L. Vallandigham, a citizen of the State of Ohio, on or about the first day of May, 1863, at Mount Vernon, Knox County, Ohio, did publicly address a large meeting of citizens, and did utter sentiments in words, or in effect, as follows, declaring the present war "a wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war;" "a war not being waged for the preservation of the Union;" "a war for the purpose of crushing out liberty and erecting a depotism;" "a war for the freedom of the blacks and the enslavement of the whites;" stating "that if the Administration had so wished, the war could have been honorably terminated months ago;" that "peace might have been honorably obtained by listening to the proposed intermediation of France;" that "propositions by which the Northern States could be won back, and the South guaranteed their rights under the Constitution, had been rejected the day before the late battle of Fredericksburg, by Lincoln and his minions," meaning thereby the President of the United States, and those under him in authority; charging that "the Government of the United States was about to appoint military marshals in every district, to restrain the people of their liberties, to deprive them of their rights and privileges;" characterizing General Orders No. 38, from Head-quarters Department of the Ohio, as "a base usurpation of arbitrary authority," inviting his hearers to resist the same, by saying, "the sooner the people inform the minions of usurped power that they will not submit to such restrictions upon their liberties, the better;" declaring "that he was at all times, and upon all occasions, resolved to do what he could to defeat the attempts now being made to build up a monarchy upon the ruins of our free government;" asserting "that he firmly believed, as he said six months ago, that the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before." All of which opinions and sentiments he well knew did aid, comfort, and encourage those in arms against the Government, and could but induce in his hearers a distrust of their own Government, sympathy for those in arms against it, and a disposition to resist the laws of the land. To which charges and specifications, the prisoner refusing to plead either "Guilty," or "Not Guilty," the Commission directed |