^^^I^8- t. | <^' I — j_ \ j^ / p^jje University Lioraries 
 
 Correspondence 
 Conf Pam #633 
 
 
C Q R IIB ^ P O ^ D K N C F. . 
 
 NATrnrrociir-.^!, La., | 
 Octotior -271:1, 18G-t. ) 
 
 Gencrul: Yo;ii- let'conlated October 
 21st, rea'Jief] nie by Courier yesterday. 
 
 The copy of the opinion in the Mo- 
 K(ie case received b^' you was not 
 sent by me. I have never had a copy 
 of the opinion — althoui^h if I had had 
 the control of one, and supposed you 
 desired it, I wonld very cheerfully 
 Lave forwarded it to you. 
 
 I understand from your letter that 
 the order received by you from De- 
 partment Headcpiarters and commu- 
 nijated to me, at y(jur request, by 
 Lient. Fn.sflier — that th.ere sliould no 
 lonu^er be any delay in the execution 
 (»f McKee, was made in reply to a 
 letter fn)m you to the Department 
 Oommander in which you informed 
 Ijim tliat " the execution would prob- 
 ably be delayed by proceedings be- 
 fore the civil Court." 
 
 This letter to the Department Com- 
 mander was written when you "learn- 
 ed the purpose of the prisoner to ap- 
 ply for a writ of ITa'oeas Corpus." 
 The writ to which you refer was is- 
 sued about 6th of Aus"ust, so that 
 3'our communication to General Smith 
 was between, say the 1st and 6th of 
 Au.i:!;ust, General Smith it appears, 
 " misapprehendincT your latter" ('3'ou 
 perceive General, I am not alone in 
 niisunderstanding'you) and supposing' 
 you designed a delay with the sole 
 view of enabling the accused to sue 
 out a writ replied directing you 
 not to delay the execution. The com- 
 munication made by you to me 
 through Lt. Fuselier contained no in- 
 timation of the circumstances under 
 which the order from Department 
 Headquarters — not to delay the exe- 
 cution, was made — and I was obliged 
 to consider that as it was communi- 
 cated to me, under your instructions 
 on the 2d Sept. some time after the 
 proceedings under ttie writ had com- 
 menced, and while they were in pro- 
 
 gress — that the order was in disre- 
 gard of them. You will bear in mind 
 that the order from Department Head- 
 quarters, thus communicated to me 
 on the 2d Sept. was accompanied with 
 a statement from you that McKee 
 would be shot on that day. Lieut. 
 Fus(dier (your own counsel) the 
 counsel of McKee and myself, all, I 
 will not say concurred, but assumed 
 as a matter of course, tiiat in accord- 
 ance with this order from Department 
 Headquarters you had fixed the day 
 for the execution. It appeared, how- 
 ever, from 3^our letter to me of Sept, 
 6th, that we were all in error in sup- 
 posing that you had fixed the day. 
 You say "th(5 statement is erroneous 
 in representing that I had announced 
 a purpose of my own, when in fact a 
 reference to my letter will show, that 
 I designed simply to make known the 
 instructions of another party in con- 
 nection with the fact that a certain 
 time had been 'fixed for the execu- 
 tion." Tin's language it appears to 
 me can be understood but in one way, 
 namely: you did not intend to an- 
 nounce to me a purpose of your owu 
 in fixing the day for execution — but 
 the purpose of another party to do so. 
 As I was not aware tliat 3'ou could 
 receive orders from any other person 
 in the Department than Gen. Smith, 
 there was not left for me' any other 
 conclusion than that the order fixing 
 a day for the execution of the prison- 
 er, came from Department Headquarr 
 ters. It turns out however, from you- 
 explanation that General Smith is 
 free from censure in this regard, and 
 I regret very much having made a 
 statement that does him injustice and 
 for which I shall do all in my power 
 to make amends. But it is due to 
 myself to say, that the error into 
 which I fell wps caused by you. I 
 do not now, understand why you 
 bhould have communicated to me, 
 j>emling the proceedings under tho 
 
L -2 1 
 
 jJiibcas Covp^^=;, on ov^cv fr.vn DopAf'.- 
 nient Hearlquarters directii)^ you "cnt 
 to di'lay the exi'C!Ui')ii uf the pridoiicr, 
 when tliat order whs made, when 
 General .Smith hud no knowledgx' t!iat 
 McKee was l)ofore a civil tiibunal on 
 a writ of Habeas C'-rpus and was 
 made with no pnrpose whatever to 
 thwart the power of a conrt of jn - 
 tiee. Nor do I understand why I 
 was informed that Mclvce was to be 
 shot on the 2d of Sept. when no such 
 order was made by yon, or emanatid 
 from Department. Headqnarters. H;id 
 3'on not communicat<'d to nie, that 
 McKee wouUi Be shot on the 2d, no 
 notice conld have been taken of it. 
 But as when the Docice was made, 
 1 had been informed of the intended 
 execution, the fact became important 
 to be placed upon the record, as evi- 
 dence of a wilfnl disregard of the 
 saustily of tlie judicial proceeding's. 
 Your letter to nie is fall of very ap- 
 propriate and judicious observations 
 demonstrating that you must neces- 
 sarily attach as much importance to 
 such a fact as I possibly could. 
 
 I make these statements to set my- 
 self right and to do justice where I 
 have done injustice and abstain from 
 commenting upon them. I have no 
 wish to complain of you. I bear my 
 williiig testimony to the perfect pro- 
 priety of your course throughout this 
 whole matter, although yon will ne- 
 cessarily attach no value to any com- 
 mendation of mine. Nor. from your 
 letter, can I see an}'' cause of com- 
 plaint against General Smith, and I 
 very much regret that the explanation 
 you have now made did not accompa- 
 ny your letter to Lieut. rus(;lier or 
 tlie one to me of the 6th Sept., or was 
 not given immediatcily after the re- 
 ceipt of the manuscript copy of my 
 opinion sent to 3'ou by Mv. Duncan 
 about a month ago. llad you made 
 the explanation in time, the error into 
 which I was led would have been 
 corrected, while now, the injustice I 
 have done General Smith (you will 
 
 jKirdon me for repeating, cansed by 
 you, tliough wholh' unint(n>tioni)l) 
 will jj^o forfli wilh the opiiiion which 
 I see by a Shreveport paper received 
 3'esierday has jiidt been printed. 
 
 I beg leave to call y(i>ur attention 
 to tlie following passage from yuur 
 lettiM' which under liie explanations 
 made b}- you is not intelligible to me: 
 "I deemed it my duty to inform you 
 as I did through Lieut. Fuselier, of 
 in^"^ instructions in connection with 
 the fact that the day of execution 
 under the postponement alluded to 
 had been fixed for the 2d Sept. , orul 
 thai the insfnidions I had received for- 
 bade a posfpojiancnt beyond that time" I 
 have underscored these last words, 
 because I say it respectfull}^ tliey do 
 not appear consistent with the ex- 
 planations made' by you. Regarding 
 your let r in a liberal and candid 
 spirit, I understand from it, that the 
 order not to debiy the execution of 
 McKee was made at Department 
 Headquarters, in ignorance of the 
 proceedings under the Habeas Cor- 
 pus, and that no order came from 
 Department Headquarters, directing 
 that the execution of McKee should 
 take place o" the 2d iSept. 
 
 T proceed to anothar subject. 
 
 You say: " I was surpised there- 
 fore, to find in reviewing the record 
 3'esterday, the following note in pen- 
 cil mark, apparently written by you 
 (mej on 'Henry'3 letter and signed 
 with the first two letters your (my) 
 name. 
 
 "Rejected hj the Court, see page 
 *I9. The insertion of this letter 
 arncmg the evidence is an outrage 
 against law and justice.' 
 
 Mo." 
 
 If the letters "Mo." were intended 
 as an abbreviati(m of my name, and 
 made for the purpose of indicating 
 me as the writer of the "note," all I 
 have to say is that a forgery has been 
 committed. Of that note, I did not 
 write a word or a letter, nor was it 
 written with my knowledge, or by 
 
I 3 1 
 
 vny advicn or snjrg'i'stion IT'iion tlio 
 recoi-il was in ni^' ])(issossi()n "tlio 
 Hole" w;is sig'iieiT with tlio initials of 
 «I. VV. Duiioaii, Esq., or 1 am most 
 grevioiisly mistaken. But be this as 
 it may, I expiessed my surprise to 
 Mr. Duncan tliat such a tiK-morandum 
 sliouM bo niado upon a docnmojit in 
 the rtcnrd. Withoct tlio sliu,iitest 
 hesitation Mr, Duncan avowed him- 
 self the writer ui' it, and declared he 
 considered hin<self I'ully authorized 
 to make it. 
 
 I have replied to all that T doomed 
 essential ii\ yc)ur letter. 1 have care- 
 fully avoided expressinj^ myself with 
 any asperity, and have withheld ma- 
 king conuneiits where the mat'.er 
 would seem to call fur them. The 
 tone of your letter precludes me from 
 saying much that I should have been 
 pleased to say, hiid you thought proper 
 to address me in a diiTerent spirit. I 
 merely desire to add that there are 
 portions of your letter that imply 
 that I have sought to cast censure on- 
 yoti. In^this, as in many other things, 
 yi)U are wholly mistaken. I have 
 never had any feeliiig for you but 
 that of respect, and notwithstanding 
 the harshness of your letter, which I 
 liave lived to but little purpose if I 
 cannot rfford to overlook, 1 have still 
 no feeling for you but that of the 
 most entire respect. 
 
 I have the honor to bo. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 C^igned) 
 
 E. WARRENf MOISE. 
 
 To S. B. BCTCKXEK, 
 
 Lt.-Gen, Comd'g. D. W. La. 
 
 Headquarters. Di.'?t. T^'est. La., } 
 Ak'.\a,ndiia, Oct. 27th, 18G4. f 
 Sir : — I have the honor to acknowledge 
 the receipt of your letter oi" the 2Tth inst. 
 A few points of it demaud a leply. 
 
 I was not mistaken in suppnsiiiir that you 
 
 would ro;irct the injiisUce tom had done 
 
 Ooncral HmiJh ; hnt 1 am certai.il.v surprisnl 
 
 t hat you fhnuid chaise nie with beiii^ th'j 
 
 occasion ci" it, 'i'be a;ic reason is, as I ixi- 
 
 foro intimated, that ycu undertook to give 
 to oilier depaituieuts of the government a 
 history of the actions of llie milit-aiy au- 
 thor! lics, wlien in fact you knew very httle 
 about ihem ; when it does not appear that 
 yiju sou-rht full ir.i'oimation on the .subject, 
 a\n] when their conduct was not befoic you, 
 for adjudication. I supposed youweiesii- 
 tini: in judjuient on the ri^ht of tlie Court 
 Martial to try McKee. You asked me to 
 .«liow under what authf lity I held him. I 
 u plied lully to yonr demand. I did not see, 
 1 or do 1 yet see that you were sittir'.^ Icjriti- 
 mateiy in iud'^tncit upon (xtianeous que - 
 tions of miiitaiv udminisiraiion. You state 
 in your argument that much that you will 
 say " is not nece?i?ary ("or the decision of the 
 questions presented for solution.' If you 
 went hej-onu the point which your duty re- 
 quired and retlectcd unmstly upon the con- 
 duct of military oflicers you should consider 
 ytmrself, and not others, responsible for the 
 error. 11" you were in fact siltincj in jud'r- 
 nient on the conduct of Geneial bmith, and 
 had asked of me infoiniation on the poin's 
 under investigation, I would have informed 
 you of what I knew. But you asked me 
 uothin;^ of the SOI t. You issued a deer ^ 
 the pi-camble of which seems eniiRly unne- 
 cessary to the proceedino: and which did in- 
 justice to me. I wrote you a letter coi reel- 
 ing your enoi. I sought to coovincc you 
 that you were wvoog in Oiiiibutiog to me a 
 purnose of 'ntO' "enng wi.h the civil pro- 
 ceedings. My '-puiposc" had been previ- 
 ously indicated in my insti notions, already 
 cited, to the Adjulant to f^eicr die execution. 
 You maelo anexti.-'et fiom that letter, in- 
 serted it in your published opinion, and made 
 it the basis of an incoiiect allegation against 
 the Department Commander. I wrote you 
 with a view of correcting this last 
 error. I pointed out to you the impioper 
 constructie-u you had placed upon my iar- 
 guage. I addtd a succinct staicment of the 
 cireumstaneea attending the aoiion of the 
 military authorities. 1 deemed it my duty 
 to do so. You had connected my name 
 ■with the charge against xhe Department. 
 Commauder, and as an honorable (flicer, I 
 had not the privilege oT remaining silent. 
 1 wculd gladly have done so. if a sense of 
 justice to others had peimitted. You seem 
 Slid to think that my language is justly sus- 
 ceptible of the iuterpietalion you placed upon 
 it. I think not. In addressing you I had a 
 right to thiiik that you would ftiidy theiaws 
 which you were called upon to interpret in 
 the case before you. You would hav found 
 m them that the reviewing ofljcer, Geuera] 
 
CM- 
 
 Walker, or hi? successor in the coTumand, 
 was the person to act ou the fconteiice of the 
 Court Martial. You would have found in 
 the proceedings of the Court Martial which 
 were officially before you that the sentence 
 •was to be executed at a time to be L!e?i^,-na- 
 ted by the District Comaiauder. I think 
 you would liave deduced lioni these facts, 
 that the Department Coimnander could not 
 fix the day ot the e.xecuiiou. Then, as I 
 did not say that he fixed ihe time, what right 
 has any one to infer such a staLcment from 
 the languoje of ihe letter? 
 
 It is true that I received instructions not 
 to delay the execution. I have explahiedto 
 you the misapprehension under which those 
 instructions were given. I was myself un- 
 der a misapprehension in regard to them at 
 the time they were received. You say just- 
 ly, that there have been misconceptions on 
 the part of others as well as of youiself. 
 But I think the other panics alluded to 
 ■were more just in one other respect. They 
 did not make their misconcepiions ihe basis 
 of an allegation against an iimocjot par^y. 
 They contiued themselves si) ictly to their 
 duty ; and corrected their en ors of judg- 
 ment by the dcvelopmeuus of time. Tou 
 are correct in- your present construction of 
 my statement that the insiiuclions fjom De- 
 partment Headquarters did not fix the date 
 of the execution. The date had been pvevi- 
 ous'y fixed at District Hcadquarteis. I 
 was also coueet in stating ihat -ihe instruc- 
 tions I had leceived 'bibadea pcsiponemeut 
 beyond that lime," I say " beyo.ul tlicl i.me" 
 because that dale hi'd been fixed in the or- 
 ders Irom these Headquai ters, and the order 
 ot the Department Commander, though is- 
 sued in igooi-auce of the day fixed, must be 
 construed to have reil'ienee to the Siaie of 
 things existing when ihe oder reached here. 
 Had the day of execution been previously 
 postponed by me to the 1st December that 
 would have been the day referred to in the 
 Department O'der unless some other day 
 had been specially designated. No day was 
 designated in ihat oider. "J'he order was of 
 a character to forbid any further p'.isipone- 
 ment. It was issued even in ignorance of 
 the day to which the execution had been de- 
 ferred ; and yet if I had obeyed it, the pris- 
 oner would have beeu executed on the 2d 
 September, because it was to that tiuie that, 
 in anticipation of the completion of the pro- 
 ceedings of your Court, the execution had 
 been postponed by orders irom District 
 Headquarters. If you will consider that 
 the law and custom required the District 
 
 Commander to fix the date; ihat iL : adju- 
 dicaiiou was comnlele when ihe District 
 Commander had acted; that until he had 
 eiliciah'y proniuigaied h's action, it was as 
 impossible for ihe DeoaiimenL Commander 
 to in I ei nose as it woiitd be for ilie T-esident 
 to veto a bill befoie it passed toe Cong! ess, 
 YOU will easily pci'ceive, I ihinhjhe dis.inc- 
 tion bea>eeo a recognilioa of the judicial 
 actio'i of ihe Disrict Commander, as an- 
 nounced in oideiS; and an alh'gatiou against 
 ihe Dei-^^rcmeot Commander of u^u^■;^ing• 
 the judicial mni^iions of ihe Disiviet Com- 
 nipr.der by in rO) posing between the Court 
 and the leviewing oflicer and fixhig the time 
 of execulion. The judicial action under 
 the m'liia\y law was complete when thus 
 announced. 'J'he Department Cummt>uder 
 rested under no grcatci- obligations and pos- 
 sessed no g'eater auihoriiy in iliis case than 
 in any other case itied in ttie railiia.y dis- 
 tiict. The judicipl proceedings were com- 
 plete when the District Commander finaUv 
 acted on ihe jcdgment of the Couit. The 
 execution coald take place at ihe v/ill of fhe 
 Distiict Comnmnde'- without even a refer- 
 ence of the subject to his supe ior. The 
 Department Commander was not in any way 
 responsible for ihe judgment of the military 
 Court. The law did not place the revision 
 of the proceedings in his hands and he 
 could not interpose between the reviewing 
 officer and the Comt. When its judgment 
 was officially announced, then, but not until 
 theU; it was competent for him to say wheth- 
 er the public inteiests required an immedi- 
 ate compliance with the judgment, or a post- 
 ponement of the execution. He judged that 
 the interests of his command recuired the 
 consummation of ihe pioceedings, and he 
 instructed me accordingly. 1 did not think 
 it necesfcdry that you should know v.^hat dc- 
 termiuatiou I may have reached in refeieuce 
 to obeying those insiiuciions. I do not 
 think it now incumbent on me to tell you. 
 It was a military question between General 
 Sari ih and me. You had nothing to do with 
 it, nor have you now anything- to do with it. 
 You might have considered it an imperti- 
 nence in me to have volunteered my purposes 
 in leference to my militaiy Commander. 
 But I conceived it my duty, as I had res- 
 ponded to the writ, to possess the Court 
 with the knowledge of ali matters calculated 
 to affect tlie prisoner. I therefore reported 
 ihe instructions 1 had received. The ques- 
 tion had been before the civil Court many 
 days. I did not know but a determination 
 had already been reached. If so it was 
 
! 5 ] 
 
 probable that I miglit rocolvo it by the time 
 fixed fiir tlie p?cecutioii. If the <]eeisinn of 
 t^ie civil Court were ill fuvor of the ja: isi^ic- 
 tion of the Court j^fartiul the order oi' Gen- 
 era] Smith could bo obeyed und no qutytion 
 wouid a,i-ise between us. If it were adverse, 
 there would be a conflict of authority in 
 ■which I must tai<e the responsibility of diso- 
 beyino- either my military supv'rior or tlie 
 civil Court. It is not strange that I sought 
 to relieve myself from the embiyras.^ment 
 and to avail myself of any opportunity that 
 might properly oifer to obey the orders ot my 
 military superior if the decision of the civil 
 Court were fivorable to the juris liction of 
 the Court i\[artial. T)ut I heard neither 
 from you nor 'Vom Geueral Smith. Not- 
 withstanding this the prisoner was not exe- 
 cuted. 1 vegaidcd the civil auihorily as 
 the superior ol the two. I awaited its ac- 
 tion and obeyed its mandate. General 
 Smith fidly approved my aciion, and the 
 facts show that the order given by him was 
 give;-; under an erroneous supposition that 
 no writ had been issued. By iimiiing our 
 action stiictly to our duty I think we have 
 avoided the errors into which the civil Court 
 has fallen, when, to use the language of your 
 written opinion it has discussed matters "not 
 necessary for the decision of the questions 
 immediately pi eseaied for solution.'' 
 
 I am surprised that you sliould state so 
 positively t!-,at the first letter to which I 
 allude as having been wriUen to General 
 Smith, "was between, say the 1st and Olh 
 of August." Fortuna ely I ueed not go 
 further than your own pievious statemenls 
 to refute this supposition on your port. It 
 appears from your nai rative tif the progress 
 of the case, that the writ of Habeas Corpus 
 when issued, about the Gth of August, was 
 served on General Walker, who was then in 
 command. You state that at that time 
 the trial was represented as only progres- 
 sing. You state that on the 7th, General 
 Walker, who was still in command, request- 
 ed you to make the writ returnable in Alex- 
 andria ; and that you accordingly made it 
 returnable there ou the 12th of August. — 
 You state that you were too ill to attend 
 the trial. Tli-.^ writ therefore died because 
 you did not renew it. You also mention 
 the General Order of Major-Gen. AA'alker, 
 which was dated August 17th, at which 
 date h3 was necessarily in command and 
 which approved the sentence of the Court 
 Martial. It appears further from your nar- 
 rative that it was not until after the issu- 
 rance of this oijer, and wheu it was repre- 
 
 sented to you Unit the (rial was ponclnded 
 that the writ was lovived by your iuueh 
 and converted inio the new writ to which I 
 allude. It w.is then for ihe first time ad- 
 dressed to me, who, subsequent vo tiie i7il> 
 of August suece;^ded Gen. Walker — and 
 was made relui liable at Naiclii.oches. How 
 can you reconcile with your own previous 
 histoiy of this case, this new diduciion th;it 
 1, as the Commander of the Disivict. had. 
 '•between the 1st and (iih of An-.'-ust" be- 
 fore the tiiai was conii>!eted and before 1 
 had assumed command, reporied to General 
 Smiili the day which had been fixed for the 
 cxecuLion? If you cao so misconcolve the 
 tenor of your own siaiements it is perhaps 
 uniensonable in me to e.xpect you to draw 
 coi ivct deduciioDS from mine. The fact is 
 iliat i did not assume command until Aug. 
 ISih. and the Idler in quesiion was wri.ieii 
 on the 19th of llie same month — and that 
 at the time at which you so positively inl'er 
 that I wrote ihe letLer, I was actually in 
 'J'exas and knew nothing whatever of t'.ie 
 case. 'Jlie action of General Smith will 
 appc'.r ill asiill clearer !ir-lii, when I make 
 a coneciion which 1 desue to make in re- 
 teience to my letter ol the ]Odi of August. 
 My previous coinmunicaiion was wriiten 
 Iroin iny recollection of the statements con- 
 tuined in that letter and at a moment when 
 it was not of ready access. A relei ence to 
 the letter book to-day shows thai, the letter 
 of the irth simply leponsthe official action 
 of my predecessor in the case, and does not 
 refer to the subject of the Habeas Corpus. 
 My reference to the Habeas Corpus was 
 not made until the 2Sth ; and it was alto- 
 gether unlikely that General Smith could 
 liave received information of the issuance 
 of the writ, before the insiruciions to exe- 
 cute the sentence were given. 
 
 I deeply regret that 1 have unintention- 
 ally done you injustice in rei'erence to the 
 annofaiion made on the record of the Court 
 Martial. I have this excuse for my error. 
 The record was lefi; with you. I did not 
 conceive tiiat it would be placed ia the 
 hands of the Counsel of the prisoner. I 
 could not see why he, who was inereij plead- 
 ing the cause of his client bel'ore you could 
 undertake to make an addition to the re- 
 cord in your hands and sit in judgnjeni upon 
 the acts of the Court Manial. I deemed 
 you responsible that the record should be 
 returned in the same couditiou that it was 
 placed in your keeping. You sent it to me 
 by the hands of the Hon. Mr. Kenner, M. 
 C. It is now in piccisely the same coudi- 
 
G 
 
 t'r.n iii v>i;i(Mi .^ ror 'iv-,! it ."loni liim. I 
 <_-<<ii (] n<t; for unioiiuisl iliiuk iiuit Ah. Kri'.- 
 i;er (lie bcinoi- oj' the iccivtl, cou!cl iiuiko 
 i'ny aitoiniioii in it ills c.!;Lr;iciLT uiU) tiil 
 tiiu citcuiiiilaucrs aiiOU(.]:ii3" liiin as simiily 
 llie uiidiiiiii oi' I't^nsmiii iin'>' the iccdiil 
 ])iio!n(]c'cl iiio supposi>ii.;ii. It was icasoiui- 
 b!e iheu'-oie iov me to coiiciude iLat yon 
 v.cre U'S-|)Oiisi'jie fur llie ODiiOiation. It 
 bote ,lit' si;iiiuii)ie wlsich ew'y one to whom 
 it has bfch siiomiia'd, bd'oie and siucc the 
 j('Ci;]jiioii ol your li.st leLier. h '^ lead as ihe 
 first two letiers ol' your name. It is wiUi 
 SiuisiacLion; howevti, tliac 1 add. that your 
 disavo\^al oonipieiely e::ho!ieia''.oa you iri'ni 
 any coni;>licii:y in ili'S matte;- ; and in Uiy 
 statement on the lecoid, it will be wiui 
 pleasure that I will render you tliat justice) 
 1 regret thatyoi think l.ij tJne oi' m. 
 leii-er to you inipioper. It was not inreiul- 
 eJ to be oiTensive. I eoosidcied myscii' iui- 
 propeily ihe subject Oi'yoU'- aniuiadvei-^ioiis. 
 I coiisideicd uhau your leply to iliC j\iarshal 
 looked to the ••exteuLion upon me ol' wh^t 
 I ie;iaid as the ille'ial part oi' your decMx\ 
 I coiisideied <hat 1 had cause to comph'Lin 
 oj" an unnecessary use and improper c(!ii- 
 slruction of my letter, which was made un- 
 justly to rcHect upon auoiber o3icer. I 
 knew that that o3ieer ente'-iained ihe gieat- 
 est respect. i"or the c'vil auiho'ities, and the 
 histoiy which I gave of the case showed 
 that both he and I had lendcved implicit 
 obedience to that auihori-y. In the face 
 of this you commented in the harsh':st man- 
 ner and in a way in which I thou[j;ht myself 
 embraced, npou our disie^ard of civil law. 
 ]\]y letier to you was ini;i;ded to rei'ute 
 Mi'iat I coDsideied ui just allegations in your 
 written opinion. I did not cast; stones — I 
 sought only to employ a shield. I regaid a 
 pioper adrainistialion of the military body 
 as one of the most efficient suppoi is you 
 can receive. I consider it my duiy to len- 
 der that suppoi t. But I consider also that 
 en oncous allegations against theaciion of 
 the military authoiities should be lefuled. 
 It they were not lefuted, the siuin wln'ch 
 they inflicted — though unmeiitcd would re- 
 main and impair our influence for good. A 
 piopcr sense of justice and (fQcial dignity 
 requiud me to notice your animad'-'cisions. 
 As Gen. "Walker's succcssfir, having cLaige 
 of the lecoid of the Court Martial, it was 
 particularly incumbent on me to notice the 
 unauthoiizfcd addition made to the record, 
 and which I disregaided as an act of disre- 
 spect and of contempt tov>ards the action of 
 a leg:al tribunal. 1 spoke pi^ainly on the 
 subjects which 1 thcuglit it n y duty to iic- 
 
 t'eo. I think I spo'^e dispapsionatoiv. I 
 did liot iniend to be OiTensive and I regret 
 tiiat you coi;s:dert! at I was. A rciutalion 
 (Terrors of judgment docs nor, with me, 
 involve persona! feeling. I have told you 
 wheiein I have Inonght your judgment 
 wrong, and your animadversions uidecoroiis 
 rnd iiojust. I intended nothing more. My 
 letier has convinced you of some of those 
 erioisand you e.\piess reg'et. Your reply 
 has shov»-n me that I have committed unin- 
 lentionaily an injustice lo you. For that I 
 desi'e to make every amend. 
 
 1 expressed in my foinier letter, my re- 
 gret a', feeling compelled to write to you ou 
 1 his subject. That regret will be lessened, 
 it' the issue should be the estabiishment be- 
 tween the civil and military auihorities of 
 lekilions of conhdeuce and nuuual support 
 so essential, under existing ciicumstiuices, 
 io tl e maintenance ofdiscijjline in the ar- 
 my, and of civil Jibei ty m the country. 
 
 Evst assuicd, sir, tliat you will not find 
 me wantnig either in lespect to yourself 
 jcrsonally, or to the judgments of the Court 
 over which you preside. 
 1 am, sir. 
 Very respect t'ully, 
 
 ■ S. B. BUCKNER, 
 I.ieut-Cencial Comd'g. District. 
 
 To Hon. K. Warren Motse, Judge Con- 
 fcdeiate Court, for District La., Katchito- 
 ci;es, La. 
 
 XatchitociieS; Nov. 6th, 1SC4. 
 Gexeral : 
 
 Your letter of the 29th was received tiic 
 day before yesterday, and would have been 
 answered more promptly, but for a severe 
 headache. I shall reply to some portions 
 of it. I exclude from this, as from my pre- 
 vious letter, any criticism on or rejoinder to 
 your views as to the correctness ot the opin- 
 ion and decree in the McKcc case, as also 
 all comment on what you think proper to 
 legard as an attack on the military author- 
 ities. I desire, however, to correct an error 
 into which yeWi have fallen. You say, " to 
 use the language of your written opinion, it 
 has discussed inaltcis 'not necessary for the 
 decision of the questions imrae-'diately pre- 
 sented for solution,'" and in another place 
 you observe th.at " you state in your argu- 
 ment that much that you will say 'is not ne- 
 cessary for the decision of the questions pre- 
 sented for solution.''" A reference to the 
 opinion (a copy of which I received a few 
 days since,) will shew that what I said was 
 that "the magnitude of the principles iii- 
 Yolved" &c., has "indr.ccd uie to j^'iit en re. 
 
L ' J 
 
 cor I a fn'l and ihLilkd arxnurJ. of t!ij caxe 
 f 1 0.71 t.'ie ber^^rii^.-iig, aithou;j;h this is n;>i, m- 
 ces.sary for the dijcision of iho ((i-'stions im- 
 moiliateiy presented foi' sol'itioM." 1 sliail 
 Dot stop to.inqiiite Tviiether in Judicial opin- 
 icns it is unusiul to go into a ui u-e coniple'o 
 history of tlje case, than is essential lor tiie 
 lendition of a judgment. 
 
 You appear to think that I wa.? not aware 
 that the reviewijij officer, or his suceessur 
 was "'the person to act on the sentence of 
 the Court Martial.'" You are ni'siakcn. A 
 very recent statute (Feb. 17, l6tJ4) had. im- 
 pressed this on my memory. It was the 
 kuowiedge of the law on t;ie subject that 
 occasioned surprise when the inference was 
 drawn that the day for the exejution had 
 been do^i'];-nated in an order from Depart- 
 ment Headquarters, and there was some 
 speculation by other.<5, as well as myself, as 
 to the em'iarrasmeat to which sue!) an order 
 mi^ht subject you — an embarrasuiont, by 
 the way, on whic'i you animadvert in yov.r 
 letter..' Your letter of the 21st October 
 gave me the opportunity of relioviiu^ Gea. 
 Smith from the responsibility of having is- 
 sued this order. I think that neither of us 
 will be able to convince the other of tiie 
 correctness or incorrecUiess of the inierenco 
 I drew from your commuiiication of Sep- 
 tember 6th. Your letter before me al'ords 
 very ample materials for a farther disciissio i 
 of "thai (juestion but as I do not perceive 
 any good that can come from It. I hojw 
 y(m will agree with me in the propriety of 
 dropping the suliject. 
 
 You aie correct in saying tl at I erred in 
 assuming the date of your letter to Gen. 
 Smith to be betwoDn the 1st and Gth. 
 It ai)pears that you were not iu command 
 until the 18th. Having no copy of my 
 opinion nor any memoranda from which to 
 refresh my memory, it is not to be wondered 
 at that I made this mistake of date in a mat- 
 ter wholly immaterial. 'J'his mitifake of 
 mine in a letter to you (not iu the opinion) 
 arose iu th s way : You informed me that 
 " having learned the purpose" of McKee to 
 apply for the writ of Habeas 0(n-pus, you 
 wrote the lette; which Gen. Smith " misap- 
 prehending," directed you not to delay the 
 execution. Xow as the writ was issued 
 about the 6th (that is the alias writ, the 
 origiual was in July.) it appeared to me, 
 that as at the time you wrote to Gen. S. 
 you had only " learned the pitrpn^c" of Mc- 
 Kee to apply for the vi-rit, your letter to 
 Gen. R. must have been written before the 
 6th, the date of the issuance o: the writ. 
 
 Or' th^> IKiih, wh-^n yo:! took cimui'id, t-l(T 
 writ iiad i).vn oiit-<l;.indin^ ne-.irly two vv-ej<s. 
 1 1 oilier words, when you wrote to (imi. S. 
 t e prisoner's •' /^itr^ws?" was accom,iiished. 
 I could not possibly sappo.ij that when y.iu 
 wrote that yon ad-lressed Gen.S. at the titne 
 you " learned the purposs'' of McKee to ap- 
 ].ly fur the wrir.tlnit your letter was written 
 aiter that "yj't/.w-/" was consummateJ. 1 
 tiiiuic you lab a* under some confus'ou of 
 ideas aoout writs and return days, a^id that 
 yoar wasit of precisiou was the result of 
 th'S. Bat the subject is not worth dwelling 
 u )on. You will penult me to remark ea 
 pas^uid, that you certainly ought to excuse 
 mo fi)r this error of date, when I had no 
 materials to refbr to, when you, ytmrself 
 with access, if not "'•eady access,'' to your 
 letter book, inform me that a letter which 
 you thought you had written on the lOih, 
 was in fact, not written until the 28th. A 
 word ill reference to the I'ecord and the 
 "note." The record was handed to me by 
 L eut. Fii-?lier, and was never out of my 
 pos-essiou until it was sent to you. It was, 
 di»ubiless,us?d by the counsel on both sides 
 to prepare their arguments, before it was 
 hanJjd to me. 
 
 In refereate to the remark made by me in 
 a private letter to the Marshal (an old ac- 
 quaintance for Vidiom I have great regard.) 
 tl, at decrees are "executed not served." I 
 hid no more intention of saj-ing any thing 
 disrespectCul of you than I had of speaking 
 disrespectfully of Louis Napoleon. This 
 disclaimer will be suliicient without going 
 iuto any narrative in relation to the circum- 
 stance.-; under which this language was used. 
 
 This correspondence was commenced by 
 you, I suppose, with two objects : 
 
 lot. To induce me to do justice where I 
 bad done injustice. 
 
 2d. To find fault with me tor the " note '' 
 in the record. 
 
 I have acknowledged the injustice I have 
 done Gen. S., though I have insisted on the 
 justice of the inference that occasioned it. 
 You have acknowledged your error in charg- 
 ing me with wri ing the "note," &c. 
 
 I placed iu the opinion your letter of 
 Sept. Gth from' which I drew the inference 
 of which you comnlain, so that i ' I erred 
 the reader could detect the error. You say 
 that 1 made my "misconceptiou the basis of 
 an allegation against an innocent party," 
 and in doinir so 1 acted diiTere:;t!y from oth- 
 ers who had also made misconceptions. 'I'o 
 your candor 1 submit the inquiry whether 
 vou are uot auicuabic to the censure voa 
 
s i 
 
 fittni.-li to rr.<?? ITiivo jrn nrit made an iiHc- 
 jiation cjyai'ist. ii e whoiiy uiii'oniMk'fl. nmi to 
 which 1 did uot contribale directij' or indi- 
 rec ly? 
 
 Yl,u T7i!] ever find mc ^iilinn; to act in 
 ]ii)rmoiiy with the raililiirj- ivuthmitics wl;eii 
 1 call do so consistently willi my duty. 1 de- 
 sire to cultivate the best reidtioiis'with all. 
 You aet on your sense of duty, I act on 
 iiiiup. and both of ua will continue so to act 
 and I trust without danger of collision, or 
 disrespect. I close this correspondence in 
 the saiiie good spirit with which I entered 
 into it, aud take pleasure iu subscribiag my- 
 self, 
 
 Very respcc: fully, 
 
 Your ob"t. sev't., 
 E. W'AKREN MOISE. 
 
 To S. B. BUCKNKIT, 
 
 Lt.-Ueu. Com'g., ttc, Alex., La. 
 
 Headquaktkrs. Dist. WKpTEnN' La. | 
 Alexandria, Nov. lOlh, 1HG4. f 
 Sir — Yoiu' kiier of tl.e Gth inst reached 
 me yestciday. V/hen wise heads have been 
 involved in donbt in re'eience to your opin- 
 io-), it is pe ; ;is excnsnbie in one so i'o- 
 Icei ned as I to " labor nrder some confusion 
 oi'idcns in reference towri:s and return davs,'" 
 as discussed by you. Eut noiiher you nor 
 any oLher person can doubt ■ leadiiig my 
 letters, ihat the v/iit to which I alhide was 
 the one which was received rnd served upon 
 me. No one will preiend iba. ihe wiit or as 
 you learnedly tcim it the " a/ios writ" pos- 
 sessed (he virtues of the fable.] Phoenix and 
 after expiring on the I'l.h, could spring up 
 with fiesh li^'e irom its own ashes. It le- 
 C]iiiied yo.ir revivifying breath to enkindle 
 new li'"e, and it ref|uired a fresh lepresent.- 
 tion or anplicaiion of the pi isoner's counsel to 
 induce that action on your pc;rt. Whutever 
 "confusion" may appear from my failure to 
 employ the learuKl language of the law, in 
 reference to the large family of "vv-rits" and 
 "return days," iriy meaning, expressed in 
 plain English is so clear that you justly re- 
 mark, 'the sul.)ject is not worth dwelling 
 upon." The justice of your ciiticisra is 
 therefore not perceived, ^s I am not yet a 
 convert to the maxim that the purpose ot 
 language is to conceal ideas instead of to 
 elucidate them. 
 1 do not perceive the force of your argu- 
 
 m-Tit wliic'i, af.trynu express regret for the 
 i ijustice you lu-ve d >no (icueial tSmith, now 
 seeks to justify, or pal. iate the publication 
 of the allegation on the giound that it it be 
 iiicoirect a careful lejiler might detect the 
 error by discovering that tiie published ex- 
 tract from my letter does not sustain the 
 allegation. The difi'erence between your 
 position and mine in this particu'ar is, that 
 my allegation with your disavowal were sent 
 forth togetlier ; and had the dimensions of 
 the newspaper ad.nitted it, mj acknowledg- 
 nunt of the eiror with the reasons which bud 
 leu me into it, would also iuive accompanied 
 your explanation. This acknowledgment on 
 my part, already made to you, is delayed iu 
 publication from no fault of mine. 
 
 You remark that you "had no more in- 
 tention of saying anything disrespectful of 
 me than of speaking disrespectfully of Louis 
 Napoleon." As I think you introduced a 
 gieat many foreign elements into the discus- 
 sion of the question which evoked your opin- 
 ion, and as I am not advised of the person- 
 al relations existing between you and the 
 Emperor of the French, or how you may 
 have considered him responsible for the 
 improper arrest of McKee, it raight_be un 
 safe in me to hazard any deduction front* 
 this association of my name with that of so 
 eminent a personage. I assure you however 
 that it is certainly gratifying to me to find, 
 as I do from a perusal of both of your let- 
 ters, that you are convinced that I sought to 
 pay full respect to thede^-ision of your Court. 
 
 As I think I have said all that is necessa- 
 ry '>n the matters which w^ere the subjects 
 of discussion between us, I readily accede 
 to your suggestion of " dropping the sub- 
 ject' which 1 took up relaci-antly, without 
 personal feeling, and only fiom a sense of datv. 
 
 In concU'sion, let me add, that it is a^so 
 in the kindest spirit that I close this discus- 
 sion, and that 1 reciprocate yoir wish for 
 the most cordial co-operation in future of 
 the civil aud mi'iiar? atnhorities of the 
 Disiricc. 
 
 I am, Sir, very respectfully. 
 
 Your ob't. servant, 
 
 (Signed) S. B. BUCKNER, 
 
 Lfc.-Geu. Com'g. Dist. 
 To Hon. E. Warken Moise, Judge C. S. 
 Dist, Court, Nalchitoches, La. 
 
penmAlipe* 
 
 pH8.5