[49]. Several years later Mr. Stevens reiterated these statements to one of the editors of the New York Tribune, who again quoted Mr. Stevens’s remarks in an able editorial. A. S.
[50]. The letter reads “ult.,” but, being obviously an error, is here changed. A. S.
[51]. Copies of those addressed by Mr. Clay to the Secretary of War and to President Johnson. A. S.
[52]. Dr. Craven was already in communication with Dr. Withers, of Petersburg, Va., Mr. Clay’s cousin, who, through the courtesy of his fellow-practitioner, was enabled to contribute occasionally to Mr. Clay’s comfort and welfare. A. S.
[53]. New York Daily News.
[54]. To pass by less irreproachable witnesses, the following incident illustrative of Mr. Stanton’s brusquerie to women was told by the Reverend Elisha Dyer. “While sitting in Mr. Stanton’s private office, a well-dressed lady entered. She was rather young, and very captivating. Approaching the Secretary, she said, ‘Excuse me, but I must see you!’ My old friend at once assumed the air of a bear. In a stern voice he said, ‘Madam, you have no right to come into this office, and you must leave it! No, Madam,’ he continued, when she tried to speak, ‘not one word!’ And, calling an orderly, he said, ‘Take this woman out!’” A. S.
[55]. Mr. Scott’s daughter is the wife of the widely known Dr. Garnett, of Hot Springs, Arkansas.
[56]. The letter here given is from a copy furnished Mrs. Clay by Robert Morrow, Secretary in 1866.
[57]. For months Mr. Holt’s Report was steadily refused to the public. Referring to this secretive conduct, in July, 1866, A. J. Rogers said, in the House of Representatives, “Secrecy has surrounded and shrouded, not to say protected, every step of these examinations. In the words of the late Attorney-General, ‘Most of the evidence upon which they [the charges] are based was obtained ex parte, without notice to the accused, and whilst they were in custody in military prisons. Their publication might wrong the Government.’ ...” The Secretary of War, February 7, 1866, writes to the President that the publication of the Report of the Judge Advocate General is incompatible with the public interests. “This report,” continues Mr. Rogers, “in the testimony it quotes, will show that the interests of the country would never have suffered by the dispensing with illegal secrecy, but that the interests and fame of the Judge Advocate General himself would suffer in the eyes of all the truth-loving and justice-seeking people on earth.” A. S.
[58]. Hyams, alias Harris, was one of the witnesses who, six months before the date of Mr. Holt’s Report, had been exposed by the Rev. Stuart Robinson, and who, six months later, or less, himself confessed his perjuries to the Judiciary Committee. A. S.