HABEAS CORPUS. 



479 



propositions. It was in connection with remarks about 

 closing the war by separation of the Union. He charged 

 that the men in power had the power to make peace 

 by separation. He exhausted some time in reading 

 proofs of this one was from Montgomery Blair and 

 another from Forney's " Press." He also said there 

 were private proofs which time would disclose. He 

 said they pursued this thing until they found that the 

 democrats were unwilling to make any peace except 

 on the basis of the restoration of the whole Union. 



Q. Do you remember to what, if at all, in connection 

 with future usurpations of power he applied his 

 strongest language? 



A. 1 cannot say as to the strongest language, for he 

 always spoke pretty strongly. He denounced in strong 

 language any usurpations of power to stop public dis- 

 cussions and the suffrage. He appealed to the people 

 to protect their rights, as the remedy for every griev- 

 ance. Twice in his speech he counselled and warned 

 against violence and revolution. By the peaceful 

 means of the ballot box all that was wrong of a public 

 nature might be remedied, and that the courts would 

 remedy all grievances of a private nature. I cannot 

 quote the language, but that is the substance. During 

 his speech he referred to those in power having right- 

 ful authority, and that they should be obeyed. He 

 counselled no resistance, except what could be had at 

 the ballot box. 



Q. Was anything said by me at all looking to forci- 

 ble resistance of either law or military orders ? 



A. Not as I understand it. 



Q. What was the sole remedy that I urged upon the 

 people ? 



A. The sole remedy was, as I have stated, in the 

 courts and in the ballot box. I remember this dis- 

 tinctly, because I had been pursuing the same line of 

 remark at Chicago and Fort Wayne, and other places 

 where I had been speaking, and for the purpose of re- 

 pressing any tendency toward violence among our 

 democratic people. 



Q. Was anything said by me on that occasion in de- 

 nunciation of the Conscription Bill, or looking in any 

 way to resistance to it? 



A. My best recollection is that Mr. Vallandigham 

 did not say a word about it. 



Mr. Vallandigham : Not one word. 



Q. Did I refer to the French Conscription law, and 

 if not, by whom was reference made to it? 



A. He did not. I did in this connection. 



The Judge Advocate objected to what Mr. Cox had 

 said, as not being competent evidence. 



Mr. Cox desired to say to the Court, in explanation 

 of what he had said about the conscription law, that 

 he had just before the meeting been talking with Judge 

 Hartley about our conscription law having been copied 

 from the French law, and I merely referred to that in 

 my speech. 



Q. Do you remember my quoting from President 

 Lincoln's proclamation of July 1, 1862, the words "un- 

 necessary and injurious war?" 



A. I do not. He may have done so, but I did not 

 hear it. 



Q. Did you hear similar language used by me ? 



A. I cannot recollect it. 



Q. Do you remember my comments on the change 

 of the policy of the war some year or so after its com- 

 mencement, and what reference was made by me in 

 that connection ? 



A. He did refer to the change in the policy of the 

 war, and I think devoted some time to show that it 

 was carried on for the abolition of slavery, and not for 

 the restoration of the Union. 



Q. What did he claim to have been its original pur- 

 pose, and did he refer to any message or proclamation 

 of the President in that connection? 



A. He referred in that defence to the Crittenden 

 proposition, declaring that the war was for the restora- 

 tion of the Union, and not to break up the States. 



Q. Did I 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. 



Mr. Vallandigham : As I understand that portion of 

 the specification which relates to the proposition from 

 Richmond has been stricken out, I will ask no ques- 

 tions about it. 



Q. Was any denunciation of the officers of the army 

 indulged in by me, or any offensive epithets applied to 

 them? * 



A. Well, occasionally, Mr. Vallandigham used the 

 words, " The President and his minions," but I did 

 not think he used it in other than the general accepta- 

 tion of that term. He did not use it in connection with 

 the army. 



Mr. Vallandigham : I did not use it in connection 

 with the officers of the army ? 



Mr. Cox Ft was in connection with arbitrary ar- 

 rests perhaps that he used it. 



Q. Was it not in connection with army contractors 

 and speculators? 



The Judge Advocate objected to the question, and 

 said the witness had distinctly stated that he did not 

 think Mr. Vallandigham had applied it to the officers 

 of the army. 



Q. Do I understand you to say that the denunciations 

 to which you refer were chiefly in reference to arbi- 

 trary arrests ? 



A. My recollection is that that was the connection 

 in which it was used. He used strong epithets to- 

 ward spies and informers, and did not seem to like 

 them very much. 



Mr. Vallandigham : As the Court has admitted that 

 I did make a distinction between the Butler county 

 case and the Kentucky spy, I will not refer to it now. 



Q. Do you remember the connection in which 

 words to this effect were used at the close of the speech : 

 " in regard to the possibility of a dissolution of the 

 Union and of his own determination in regard to 

 such a contingency, " and his declining- to act as a 

 priest " ? 



A. I cannot give the exact words, but I remember 

 the metaphor, " that he would not be a priest to min- 

 ister at the altar of disunion." It was as he wound up 

 his speech. He was speaking about disunion, and his 

 attachment to the Union. 



Q. What counsel did I give the people on the subject 

 of the Union at the close of my speech? 



A. He invoked them under no circumstances to 

 surrender the Union. I think he said something about 

 leaving it to our posterity. 



Q. Do you remember my rebuke of arbitrary court- 

 martials, and was it in connection with the Butler 

 county case ? 



A. Yes; F so understood it. 



Q. What was the general character of my remarks 

 on that subject ? 



A. He denounced the applause of Jeff. Davis by that 

 party, and said there was a mode by which this man 

 could be tried. 



Mr. Vallandigham asked whether the rebuke had not 

 reference to and was spoken in connection with the 

 Butler county case? He desired a distinct answer to 

 this. 



Mr. Cox : He was speaking of the Butler county 

 case, and he pointed out a mode by which such a man 

 could be tried. 



Q. Was anything said in my speech in reference to 

 the war except in condemnation of what I claimed to 

 be the policy upon which it is now being waged, and 

 as a policy which I insisted could not restore the Union, 

 but must end finally in .disunion ? 



A. I can only give my understanding. I do not 

 know what inferences other people might draw from 

 it. I understood his condemnation of the war to be 

 launched at the perversion of its original purpose. 



Mr. Vallandigham : I do not remember anything 

 further just now. I have some other witnesses whom 

 I desire to examine on this same point who are not 

 yet here. 



Judge Advocate : F have no questions to put to the 

 witness. 



To Mr. Vallandigham: Has not this witness suf- 



