478 



HABEAS CORPUS. 



Q. You speak of my saying the North might be won 

 back was it not the South that was to be won back ? 



Mr. Vallandigham said he noticed that the witness 

 used the word " North " in place of the " South." It 

 was the South he referred to. 



A. No. I noticed this particularly. It struck me 

 very forcibly. 



Q. You say that I said that I would not counsel re- 

 sistance to military or civil law. Did I not expressly 

 counsel the people to obey the Constitution and the 

 laws and to pay proper respect to men in authority, 

 but to maintain their political rights through the ballot 

 box, and to redress personal wrongs through the judi- 

 cial tribunals of the country, and in that way to re- 

 buke and put down administrations and all usurpa- 

 tions of power? 



A. Not in that connection. He said, at the last of 

 his speech, to come up to the ballot box and hurl the 

 tyrant from power. 



Q. Do you recollect the whole connection in which 

 that sentence was used? 



A. I did not understand him to advise submission 

 at all times. 



Q. Do you recollect the sum and substance of what 

 I said? 



A. I remember part of it ; but I cannot remember 

 the language or the substance so as to answer the 

 question. 



Q. Did I not say that my authority to speak to the 

 people in public assemblages on all public questions 

 was not derived from General Order, No. 38, but from 

 General Order, No. 1 the Constitution of the United 

 States, George Washington commander ? 



A. I understood him to say that his authority to 

 speak to the people was higher than General Order, 

 No. 38, by that military despot, Burnside. It was Or- 

 der No. 1, signed Washington. I did not hear him 

 say " constitution." 



'Q. Were not the names Tod,' Lincoln, and Burnside 

 used in the same connection, and that I did not ask 

 their consent to speak ? 



A. At another time he did use these words. 



Q. Were not the remarks you say I made about de- 

 spising, spitting, and trampling under foot, expressly 

 applied in reference to arbitrary power generally, and 

 did I not in that connection refer to General Order, 

 No. 9, of Indiana, signed by General Hascall, denying 

 the right to criticize the war policy of the Adminis- 

 tration ? 



A. The remarks in regard to despising and spitting 

 upon were in direct reference to Order No. 38. Some 

 time afterward, in speaking of the tyranny of the Ad- 

 ministration, he did refer to Order No. 9, and of the 

 right to criticize the acts of the Administration, and 

 said that if submitted to it would be followed by civil 

 war in Ohio. 



Q. Did I approve or condemn the order? 



Judge Advocate: The question, I think, has already 

 been answered. 



Q. Will you undertake to give any connected or 

 methodical statement of my speech of over one hour 

 and a half long? 



A. I simply remember parts of it. I do not pre- 

 tend to give the speech just as he spoke it. 



Q. Were you not present in citizen's clothes, and 

 how came you to be at Mount Vernon that day, by 

 whose order, and were you sent for the purpose of lis- 

 tening to and reporting the speech? 



A. I was there in citizen's clothes by order of Col. 

 Eastman. I was sent to listen to the speech, and to 

 give my careful attention, and to get his language as 

 near as I could. 



Q. Did you make such a report? 



A. 1 did; to Colonel Eastman. 



Q. Did v'iu make report of any other speeches on 

 that occasion ? 



A. I did ; I got the substance of Cox and Reiney's 

 speeches. 



Q. Were you directed to go to Mount Vernon and 

 make a report of my speech, with reference to the 

 prosecution under General Order, No. 38 ? 



A. I was not. 



Q. Were any reasons given you why you should go? 



The Judge Advocate oojected to the question, as the 

 answer had been sufficiently given before. 



Q. Was any object stated to you, and if so what, for 

 your going there in citizen's clothes, listening to and 

 reporting the speech ? 



A. There was not any. 



The cross-examination here closed, and the Judge 

 Advocate stated that he did not propose to introduce 

 any further testimony on the part of the prosecution. 



Mr. Vallandigham asked for a few minutes to con- 

 sult with his counsel, which was granted, and the 

 Court took a recess of fifteen minutes. 



THE DEFENCE. 



On the reassembling of the Court, Mr. Vallandigham 

 called Hon. S. S. Cox, who was sworn. He was ex- 

 amined by Mr. Vallandigham. 



Q. Were you present at a public political meeting of 

 citizens of Ohio, at Mount Vernon, on Friday, May 1st, 

 1863, and if so, in what capacity? 



A. I was present as one of the speakers. 



Q. Did you hear the speech of Mr. Vallandigham on 

 that day made to the assemblage? 



A. I did. 



Q. State where your position was during its delivery ; 

 what your opportunities for hearing were, whether y_ou 

 heard it at all, and whether and why your attention 

 was particularly directed to it ? 



A. Before the speaking began I was on the stand, a 

 few feet from Mr. Vallandigham, and was most of the 

 time standing near him, so that I could not fail to hear 

 all that he said. I do not think my attention was dis- 

 tracted unless for a very few minutes during the whole 

 speech. I had not heard Mr. Vallandigham speak 

 since the adjournment of Congress, and as I came in 

 from a different direction, from the West, I did not 

 know that he was to be there. I took an especial in- 

 terest in listening to his speech throughout. Having 

 to follow him, I naturally noticed the topics which he 

 discussed. I believe that answers the question. 



Q. Did you hear any allusions to General Burnside, 

 byname or description, and if so, what were they? 



A. The only allusion he made to the General was, I 

 think, near the beginning of his speech, in which he 

 said he was not there by the favor of David Tod, or 

 Abraham Lincoln or Ambrose E. Burnside. 



Q. Were any epithets applied to him during the 

 speech ? 



A. No, sir. If there had been I should have noticed 

 them, because General Burnside was an old friend of 

 mine ; I should have remembered any odious epithets 

 applied to him. 



Q. Did you hear the reference to General order No. 

 38, and if so, what was it? 



A. The only reference made in that speech to that 

 order was something to this effect: that he did not 

 recognize (I do not know that I can quote his language) 

 Order No. 38, as superior to General Order No. 1, of 

 the constitution from George Washington, command- 

 ing. It was something to that effect. I thought it 

 was a handsome point at the time. I remembered 

 that, because Mr. yallandigham used the same expres- 

 sion in the debate in Congress on the conscription bill, 

 or in some debate somewnere else when I heard him 

 speak. 



Q. Were any violent epithets, such as spitting upon, 

 trampling under foot or the like used at any time in 

 the speech in reference to that Order No. 38 ; and it 

 any criticism was made upon it, what was that criti- 

 cism? 



A. I cannot recall any denanciatory epithets applied 

 to that order. I did not hear them, and if I nad 1 

 should have remembered them. The criticism upoc 

 the order was made as I have stated before. 



Q. In what connection did I use the strong lan- 

 guage ? 



A. Mr. Vallandigham discussed the order very 

 briefly, in order to get away on the four o'clock train, 

 and occupied most of his time in discussing other 



