973.7L 63 DH74V yV>/7r , /rx'^AA' LINCOLN ROOM UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY — ^v^Cvt^ ^ ^Z^c/Cifi^ ^o^^ ^<^y^^ VINDICATION OF JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL HOLT, FROM THE POUL SLANDEES OF Traitors, their Aiders, Abettors, and Sympathizers, ACTING IN THE INTEREST OP JEFFERSON DAVIS. SECOND EDITION, COMPRISING THE DEPOSITIONS OF JOSEPH A. HOARE and WILLIAM H. ROBERTS, and the letters of Hon. JAMES F. WILSON, Chairman of the Judiciary Committtee; of Hons. GEO. L. BOUTWELL and D. MORRIS, members of said Committee, and of BVT. COL. TURNER, and of Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War. \ 973.711.^ WASHINGTON, Sept. 4th, 18GG. To ALL Loyal Men : In the name of shnple justice— which is all that I claim from friencl or foe— your attention is jespectfully invited to the subjoined article from the WAsniNOTON Chronicle of yesterday, as presenting a perfectly truthful vindication of myself from the attrocious calumny with which traitors, confessed perjurers, and suborners are now so basely pursuing me. J. HOLT. When the minority report of Rogers upon the examinaiion made by the Judiciary Com- mif.iee into the tastimoEy alleiEjed to implicate Davis in t.he assassination of Prisident LiDcnla was published, it, was so shameless in its per- vernions and falsebonds aud so malignantly slanderous ia its tone that, in common with the lojal press of the country, we treated the paper with the silence and contempt which it so well deserved. It was felt Ihatneither public justice Dor the reputation of long- tried and faithful officers of the Government could suffer trom utterances so foul, made in the interest of the rebellion, and under the inspiration of the re- lentless hate which traitors everywhere bear toward all loyal and true men. The imputation upon the integrity of the Judge Advocate Gent- ral and the Bureau of Military Justice was not indeed dislmctly and broadly affirmed in this report, though it was a^aiji and again covenlj^ insinuated. Eucouragtd, nowevtr, by tbesikuce of the pressi and of Ju(lj;u Holt, this imputa- tion has now audaciously assumed a phase so entirely novel aud decided as to make it due to public opinion that some notice should be taken of it. It is clear that, a conspiracy has been formed to defame the Judge Advocate General and the Bureau of Mililarj Justice, aud to invoke upon him and the testimony which has been dis- credited such a meKSure of popular condemna- tion as, it is hoped, will give some support to the movement now so vigorously pressed for the release of Davis. At the bottom of this con- spiracy, or actively engagea iu executing its purposes, is Sanford Conover, who, afcer hav- ing been fully proved guilty of subornatiou ef perjury, has unquestionably sold himself to the Irieiids of Davis, and is seeking with them to destroy the reputation of a public officer whose confidence he gained, as we shall hereafter see, by the most solemn protec lati >us, aud which confidence he afterward mos'. treacherously abused. The new feature in (he operation of these conspirators, which is uovv atti'ttctiug at- tention, confists in the manufocuire of various notes containing calumniatory allusions, with , dates and averments, and insinuations to suit, which purport to have passed between Conover and his suborned witnesses; and that Conover is directly engaged in this guilty work is provtd by the public»tior, in conneeiou with tiiete notes, of letters addreestd to himself by the Judge Advocate General, and which could only have left bis possession to be. distorted and used, as they have b^'en, in furtherance of this couspiracy. We have now before us the Spring- flel-' liepuhlkan of August 14, the New York Herald of Autiu^t 24, and Vha Xatioital lutelli- aencur of the ^HU^e dete, in which the notes re- ferred to apjie.-vr. These are one signed ''M.," which bears date Apiil 17, 18G0, and is addresse'd to Conover; one signed "William Carupbell," and addressed to Conover, dated "ac. Albans, Vt., Nov. 19, ISfiS;" one by the same without date; one signed "Car- ter," addressed to Ctniovi^r, and dated "Quar- termaster's Offic;e. April 27, IStG;" one signed "Joseph Snevil," addressed to Conover, uuder date of "Westchester House, Nov. 14, 1865;" one signed "S. Conover," addressed to Patten, under date of Ephrita Mouoioin ELousc, June 8, 18C6," There are also two brief letters from the Judge Advocate General to Conover, ibe one dated March 17, 1806, and the other April 20, 1866. Now, wiih the excfption of the two lait- named leticit ot thtj JuOge Advocate General, IIDNOIS LIRRflP^ we pronounce all these DOtes sheer fabrications, manufactured and skilfully adjusted in dates, etatementB, intimations, &c., to sustain this in- famous raid on the character of the Bureau of Military Justice. To those thoroughly conver- eant with the history of the Conover testimony these papers furnish in themselves conclusive evidence of the spurioasness with which we now brand them. The hand of Conover, who is as fcbrewd as he is criminal, is seen throughout in adroiily arranging meir suggestions, dates, &c., aid placing them in such juxtaposition to the letters of the Judge Advocate General as to seem to give to the latter a signification wholly dif- f;rent from that intended by the writer. A more cold-blooded and devilish plot for the as- sassination of character has never been con- cocted in any age or country. It was a task meet for self-contessed perjurers and suborners; and zealously and faithfully are they keeping their faith with the traitors in whose service they are. We have not the time or space to point out in detail the internal proofs of the fabrication of those notes of Conover and his co-perjurers which the notes themselves furnish when viewed in their relation to surrounditg circum- stances, and must content ourselves with some general observations corroborating our position- Take for example the note signed " Carter," and dated " Quartermaster's Office, April 27.. 1866 ;" It is, in its every line and letter, an un, adulterated lie so far as Judge Holt is concerned and he so pronounces it. This man Carter was one of the witnesses produced by Conover, but he has not been sesn, communicated with, or even heard of, by Judge Holt since he gave his deposition on the 9th day of February, 1866 Tet this note has been so fabricated, and placed in date and position, in such relation to Judge Holt's letter to Conover of 26th April, 1866, as to suggest a meaning entirely different from that intended to be conveyed by its language. This letter was merely one of introduction, borne by Colonel Turner, who was sent to New York for the witnesses, and was addressed to Conover, who was supposed to know ibeir whereabouts, with a view of inducing him to aid Colonel Turner in finding them ; and it was written be- fore there was any ground known to the Judge Advocate General for suspecting the frand vMch had been j^ractised- It was after Colonel Tur- ner's arrival in New York, and after his con- ference with the- witness, Campbell, that the subornation of perjury committed by Conover was discovered. Anybody, after this state- ment, by examining the note and letter in their relation to each other as published, can see how ingenious and yet how atrocious is the use which has been made of them. This note, in its falsehood, as well as in the vile and stealthy purpose it has been made to serve, is a fair sample of the whole. Again, the letter of Judge Holt of the 17th March, 1806, alluding to funds having been re- mitted to Conover for Campbell and Snevil, related to a small amount of money sent to meet the necessary expenses of these witnesses, who had been held by the authority of the Govern- ment, and with the understanding that their expenses shoulld be defrayed — which in good faith was done, and properly done. Yet, as it will be seen by lookicg at the publication as made, this letter is placed between two fabri- cated notts containing suggestions which were evidently prepared to give to its words an utterly unwarrantable and infamous import. Ttius the web has been woven throughout by an logo spirit and cunning, but it crumbles into dust at the touch of honest truth. Whether, however, the notes of these conspi- rators have been manufactured for the occasion — which we affirm as true beyond all question — or have been written at the times and by the persons they purport to have been written by, we declare, upon the authority of the Judge Ad- vocate General himself, that every word and sjllable they contain calling in question, directly or by implication or insinuation, the integrity of his action, or the sincerity and complete fair- ness of all he has done in any connection, either with the witnesses produced by Conover before the Bureau of Military Justice, or the testimony given by them, are wholly and malignantly false. His conduct, vindicated as it is by documentary evidence ia the possession of the bureau, will abide any scrutiny to which it may be subjected by friend or foe. Having entered upon this subject; we deem it but just to the public to give in terms as brief as possible a summary of the history ot Con. over's agency, with its results, so far as it bears upon the aspersions spread before the country by the knot of conspirators and villains we are endeavoring to expose. We assert, therefore, First. That the inquiry in which Conover was employed was not begun by the Judge Advocate General until he had received from this man dis- tinct and repeated written assurances of the ex- istence of testimony criminating Davis and others, and of his ability to procure it, and proffering his services to do so. Conover. though now wholly degraded, was then, so far as known to the Government, without a stain upon his character, and the Judge Advocate General, as the head of the Bureau of Military Justice, would have been unfaithful to his duty had he disregarded these assurances or taken action less direct and decided than he-jid. Hav- ing been summoned as a witness, Judge Holt, on the 18th of June last, gave his sworn evi- dence before the Judiciary Committee of the . House of Rt-pref entatives, and from this evi- dence we make the following extracts: "In my previous testimony before the com- mittee I stated that, from the knowledge derived from the trial of the assassins of the President of the apparent complicity of Davis, Clay, and others in that crime, I felt it my duty to pursue the inv('stig8tion further. I did so on i.he first opportunity that presented itself. That oppor- . lunity was found in the written assurances of a man known to me under the- name of Sanford Conover; and who, under this name, had given important testimony on the trial of the assas- sins — testimony, however, which did not bear upon the question of the guilt of the parties on trinl es concerned in the actual murder of the President, but related only to the general con- spiracy charged to have been formed for the commission of that crime, to which it was alleged that Davis, Clay, and others were parties. "This man, it seems, had been a correspond- ent of the New York Tribune from Canada; aud it was through Mr. Gay, of the Tribune — a citi- zen of well-known character for loyalty and in- le^'rity — that he was brought to the notice of the Government as an important witness. After he had given his evidence on the trial of the assas sins, from his intelligence atd apparently inti- mate association with rebel refugees and con- spirators in Canada, I was satiffied that he had possessed unusual opportunities for acquiring information in regard to their plans and move- ments. Hence, when he wrote me alleging the existence of testimony implicating Davis and others, and his ability to find the witnesses, and proffering his services to ao so, I did cot hesitate to accept his statements and proposals as made in good faith and entitled to credit and consideration. '•The first letter which I received from him was written from New York, and bore date the 36ih of July, 1865 This letter I have now in my hand for the examination of the committee. In it will be found all the details of the assur- ances to which I have just referred. The letter is as follows; "New Yoek, July 26, 1865. "Brigadier General Holt: "Dear Sir: Believing that I can procure wit- nesses and documentary evidence sufficient to convict Jeff. Davis and C. C Clay of complicity In the assassination of the President, and that I can also find and secure John II. Surratt, I beg leave to tender the Government, through you, my services for these purposes. "Since my appearance as a witness before the commission, I have been engaged to some ex- tent, on my own account, in seeking further evidence to implicate Davis, Clay, and others ; and I feel warranted in saying that my efforts have not been without some success. I can promise to find at least three witnesses — men of unimpeachable character — who will testify that they submitted to Davis propositions, which he approved, to destroy the President, Vice Presi- dent, and Cabinet ; and that they received in- directly from the rebel government money to enable them to execute the proposed scheme. Letters, I am assured by one of the parties re- ferred to, can be adduced to corroborate a part of their statements. "Two of these persons can testify that they were present with Surratt at an interview with Davis and Benjamin last spring, in which the plot under which Mr. Lincoln was assaesioated was di.-CHssed and approved by both futcliona- ries. "These men may be relied on. As I have al ready said, their character is unimpeaebable. They despise and hate Davis now as intensely as they once admired and laved him. Besides, they feel the necessity of doicg some meriioii- ous action to insure the forgiveness and pardon of the Government they have outraged. "The interest I have manifested in this case has been prompted solely by a desire to serve the Government, though I must admit ttiat it has been intensified by my haired of the rebel leaders. The rebellion has ruined me flcian- cially, and I have suffered much at the han^is of Davis & Co. It will be no fault of mine if ihey escape withot^t their just deserts. "You may depend that I can and will, if de- sirable to you and the Government, accomplish all I promise, and more. "If it is not intended to try Davis and others for complicity in the assassination, I shall be glad to be sent after Surratt. I have ever be- lieved that I could find him, and I am confident that I can now devise a scheme for his capture. I do not enter into particulars because I know the value of your time too well to trouble yon with a long letter. If the propositions I submit are entertained, I will call on you and be more explicit. ■'Please favor me with a reply at once, and in the meantime, believe me to be your most obe- dient servant, Sanford Conover. . "Direct in care of S.-H. Gat, Tribune " On the 2d August thereafter another letter, if possible more earnest ana urgent in its tone» was written to the Judge Advocate General by Conover, who, in consequence of these repre- sentations, was, after a conference with the Secretary of War and with his assent, engaged as an agent of the Government to collect the testimony of the existence of which he claimed to have knowledge. He was occupied some six or seven months in the South, in the North, and in Canada, and from the various points he visited corresponded with Judge Holt, as did several of the witnesses. Tfiis correspondence is preserved in the files ef the bureau, and es- tablishes beyond the possibility of question the perfect good faith with which the Judge Advo- cate General acted; and it also shows that, with the information thus communicated to him, and which he had no reason to distrust, he could not have done otherwise than continue the inquiry. Second. We affirm that, instead of the Judge Advocate General having had any ground for suspecting the fraud while in progress, or hav- ing in any way sought to conceal it, he endeav- ored to have the testimony subjected io every possible test; and it was through his own direct action that the crime which bad been commit- ted was discovered, and that this horde of per- jurers was finally dragged to the light. After having, in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, presented the original correspond- 6 ence t,o which we have referred, and detailed the circumstances under whi6h the various de- positions had been given, he concluded his evi- dence in the following words: "There was nothing iu tlie previous history of Sanfoni Couover, as liuown to me, to excite any distrust, either in his iotesrity, in his truth- fulueee, or in the sincerity with which he nad made his propositions to the Government, that led to his bi^in^ employed p.s on agent for the coltt-ction of the testimony which was supposed to ixist in reference to ihe assassinalio/ii of the President. Ou tbe contrary, there was much iu fei-< intelligence which was marked and striking, and in his apparent frankness and his known coiiuection with important sources of iuforma tion, to inspire faith in his professions and promises. There was much also to inspire this faitii iu his correspondence with me, as already exhibited, while apparently engaged in the diffi- culc and responsitjlo duty imposed upon him. TCiat correspondence was characterized by unusual inlelligence, by great variety of detail, and by a naturalness which seemed to protect it from criticism; and ray confidence in the testi- mony was strengthened by my knowledge that it was in accord with and seemed to be iua large degree a natural sequence from other facts which had been tesiifled to as having occurred in Can- ada, by witnesses known to the Government, and whose reputation has not been, and cannot, it is believed, be suecessfully assailed. "Upon 1 lie passage of the resolution of the House of Representatives, appointing a com- mittee t'> investigate and ascertain what testi- mony ■ xisied in regard to the complicity of DiVis '1 ihrt assassination of the President, I appeni' ■! before this committee, in obedience to its su.iuaufio, and gave my testimony, and pro- duced 'fore it the depositions to which I have referred, together with the reports which I made, and wliicu reports, with the opinions therein expressed upon the questions involved, were based upon these depositions, and upon the other proofs therein presented and commented on ; upon which proofs these depositions were but cumulative, though strongly so. "Decided, however, as was my confidence in the iruthfulness of these depositions, I was not willing that the committee should accept my es- timate of them, or base any action of their own solely on that estimate. Hence I urged — cer- tainly the chairman and I think another member of the committee— that I should be directed or requested to bring before them the more im- portant of these witnesses produced by Conover, who were believed to be within the reach of the Government, in order that by their cross-exami- nation, their bearing while testifying,, and by such other tests as they might be euijjected to, the committee should be enabled to determine for themselves what degree of credit their evi deuce was entitled to. "In consequence of this suggestion of mine, and of its having been repeated and urged, I re- ceived the direction of the Hon. Mr. Wilson, chairman of the committee, to send for these ■witnesses, or the more important of them. I ac- cordingly sent to the city of New York Brevet Colonel Turner, judge advocate, giving him, as I uow remember it, the names of Campbell, Snevil, McGill, Wright, Patten, and Mrs. Douglas?; these being the witnesses I had rea- son to believe might be obtained within a rea- sonable time. It is barely possible that the name of Patten was not embraced in this list, owing to my supposing him to reside iu Saint Louis; but the most important of the witnesses were certainly included. Colonel Turner, on- proceeding to New York, had an interview with Campbell, who has repeatedly been referred to by me; and in a conversation with Colonel Tur- ner, Campbell declared that the testimony which ho had given in his deposition before the Bureau of Military Justice was false, and that it had been fabricated by or under the super- . vision of Sanford Conover. This I learned from Colonel Turner, and I learned he made the same statement at the same time in regard to tbe testimony of Snevil, and expressed the opinion that the other witnesses who had been produced by Conover had also sworn falsely and under assumed names. Colonel Turner brought Campbell on to Washington, and I then sug- gested that Mr. Wilson, chairman of the com- mittee, should telegraph for Conover, ia order that he and Campbell might be confronted in their examination, and opportunity thus af- forded the committee of determining the question of credibility at issue. Conover accordingly came and went before the committee, and while undergoing examination there, Campbell was introduced, and having been sworn, he stated that his deposition given before the Bureau of Military Justice was false in all respects, and was wholly and completely the fabrication of Conover, who then being present replied, under oath, that this declaration of Campbell was mu- Irue, but declined to offer any explanation. After, however, Campbell had been withdrawn, Conover suggested to the committee as a reason why he (Campbell) had made his statement that he had probably been corrupted", and sup- posed he could make more by falsifying his for- mer testimony than he could by sustaining it. "I said to Conover, immediately after his ex- amination closed, that I was utterly astounded at the evidence Campbell had given. His reply was, "You cannot be more so than I am." I then added: "You see the position in which you are placed; uow, if what is charged against you is false, your only mode of vindication is to bring before the committee the witnesses whom you produced, and whose depositions were taken before the Bureau of Military Justice, in order that they may be examind and reaffirm their testimony." He said he would proceed to New York with the officer of the committee, and as- sist him in finding the witnesses; and would, as I understood him to say, return with them to Washington. He left, as I was told, with the officer of the committee; but on arriving at New York separated himself from him, and was not seen by him afterward; and up to thi* time he has not communicated with me, nor has he made any effort, as I believe, to produce the witnesses, nor has he offered any vindication of his conduct. "This action of his, added to the declarations under oath of Campbell, followed uu. as they were afterward, by the testimony of Snevil as to the utter falsity of the depositions which he and Campbell had given, left on my mind a strong impression than Conover had been guilty of a most atrocious crime, committed u.jder what promptings I am wholly unable to deter- mine. I employed him under no contract for any stipulated compensation. He had no reason from me to believe that he would receive more for his labor in the event of his success than in the event of his failure to discover the testimony which he alleged existed; nor had he authority to give to the witnesses any other assurance than that they should not be personally compro- mised by speaking the truth. He only had reason to believe, and was so assured, that all expenses would be paid and that a fair com- pensation for the services performed — both in view of their importance and of the extreme danger to which it was supposed they might expose him — would be made, but nothing be- yond this. " Although but two of the witnesses, to wit : William Campbell and Joseph Snevil,have been found arid produced, and have declared the falsity of their depositions ; yet, considering ihe conduct of this agent of the Government as exposed and explained, it is believed that the same discredit which seems to attach to these two depositions of Campbell and Snevel should attach to all the depositions given by the wit- nesses brought to the Bureau of Military Justice for examination by Conovcr; and I would there- fore suggest, unless the grounds for discrediting these depositions be in some way removed, that all that testimony be withdrawn from the con- sideration of the committee. The witnesses whose depositions under this view would be withdrawn are the following: John McGill, William Campbell, Joseph Snevil, Farnham B. Wright, Sarah Douglass, Mary Knapp, W. H. Carter, and John H. Patten. " I append hereto, as a part of this my depo- sition, official copies of all the letters and tele- grams of Sanford Conover and others hereto- fore referred to, the whole being marked ' Exhibits to the deposition of J. Holt, Judge Advocate General.' *' I deem it proper to remark (which, possibly I may in effect have done previously) that I con- ferred freely with these witnesses, before and while examining them; that they appeared to possess the ordinary amount of intelligence, and certainly assumed perfect self-possession and frankness of manner, and seemed to be, so far as I could judge, under no improper influence; anrt there was nothing either in the testimony which they gave — regarded in the light of other evidence in possession of the Government, and which has not been successfully controverted — or in their manner while deposing calculate^! in any degree to excite doubt as to their truthful- ness ; and I did not at any time question the sincerity and honesty with which they were speaking. The disclosure made by Campbell to Colonel Turner was the first intimation which I had received of the shameless fraud which, it is alleged by two of the witnesses, has been com- mitted upon the Government by Conover." It will be observed, by reference to the report of the Judiciary Committee, that, in accordance with the view above expressed by Judge Holt, they gave to the Conover testimony no conside- ration whatever. After having given this evi- dence, the Judge Advocate General made an tlaborate report to the Secretary of War, present- ing a full history of Conover's ageucy, and de- claring the testimony introduced by him to be discredited; and formally withdrew all the depoei- tinns fro^ the consideration of the Government' Third. While a wily and profligate endeavor is made, through the fabricated notes of which we have spoken, to create the impression that large sums of money have been bestowed upon these perjured witnesses and their suborner, Conover- with a vievf to, or as a reward for, their corrup_ tion, this, like every other vile insinuation con, tained in the papers, is utterly false. We are authorized by the Judge Advocate General to Bay that nothing bejond what was deemed ne. cessary to meet the actual and reasonable ex. penscsof these witnesses was paid them. They were long held by the Government, awaiting the trial which it was anticipated might be ordered in the cases of Davis, Clay, &c., and while thu^ waiting their expenses were properly met by the Government; and this was ii\ accordance with the rule pursued in many other cases— a rule often absolutely essential to maintain the in- terests of public justice. As to Conover, his ex- penses were also paid, and he was allowed, in addition, what was regarded as a just com pen sation for his services during the six or seven months during which his agency for the bureau continued, and no more. All averments or 11- sinuations that a dollar was ever paid to these men for any other thau the purposes mentioned are wholly untrue. Thus is exposed the true nature of this elabo- rate but transparent conspiracy, which, in aim- ing to serve end to save the chief of the traitors, has not heei'ated to attempt to overthrow the official chsfecter of the Judge Advocate Gene- ral. And while this attempt must, of course, be as fruitless as il has been desperate, the en- deavor of the conspirators to protect Davis fiora the charge of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln must be alike iu vain. It is true that that portion of the* testimony brought forward by Conover is at this time discredited; and the friends of Divis, in the confusion raised by their outcry agiir.st the Jud^e Advocate Gt-neral, would hope to have it understood that this is all the material testimony upon which the charge is based. But, in point of f.ict, it is but one branch of the body of proof which has accumulated in the case. Long before the pro- duction of the testimony in queftion a tribunal, composed of officers, of the first rank and intel- ligence, had, after the fullest invnesligatiou, and upon proof which has not been, and, it ia believed, cannot be assailed, pronounced the head of the rebellion guilty of the crime which crowned its infamous his- tory. Since Iheu other and equally reliable evidence has been presented ; and the Ju- diciary Committee of the House of Repre- sentatives, in whose repoit it is set forth, have declared, upon an examination of this and Ihe previous proofs, and excluding from their con- sideration that now discredited, that "there is probable cause to believe that he (Davis) waa privy to the measures which led to the commis- 8 sion of the deed." This verdict has been ac- cepted by the great masp of thoughtful and loyal men tbroughout the country, and cannot but, we are assured, become the deliberate con- clusion of history. And the present attempt to do away with the judgment which has been passed upon Davis as an assassin, by seeking to make the impression that that judgment rests solely or largely upon the testimony produced by Conover, and thus interpose a cloud of doubt and uncertainty before the mass of proof which remains unimpfscbed, must, we are persuaded, be readily comprtbended, and everjwhtre ex- posed and denounctd. We affirm, as ourcon- clading remark, that this judgment, long since formed, is based in no degree on thistesiimony, which was never given to the country ULtil dis- credited, but that it has for its foundation a vo- lume of evidence, documentary and otherwise, in the possession of tbeGovemmtnt, which has not been controverted, but which, standing as it does, intact, poiMs to Davis as involved in the assassination of the President, with "the slow, nn moving finger" of a condemnation which no clamors, however loud or frauiic, of traitors and their sympathizers, c-in shake or disturb. The following is the letter of August 3, re ferred to in the foregoing article : New York, August 3, 1862, [1S65.] General : I proposed by letter ^ew days ago to find, for the good of the Government and people, John H. Surratt, one ot the conspirators, and to produce uuimpeacbable evidence sufii- ciimt to convict Davis, Clay, and oihers of com- plicity in the assassination of Mr. Lincoln. I solicited, indeed especied, an early reply, but was disappointed. Surratt has since been captured, (so the papers say.) so tnat, of course, my services in that direction will not be required. Probably you have also sufficient evidence to convict Davis, Clay, tt al, without the testi- mony — I should say evidence— I proposed to adduce, the wimessts I proposed to produce, and the facts that you could educe under my sugges- tion from certain dieliyalisis. If it is all so I'm glad. But will you not be kind enough, on receipt hereof, to inform me by telegraph, directed to Fifth Avenue IIotel,whether or not, I can be of further se.-vice to the Govern- ment. If I cannot be of further service I propose to go to Mexico: and my last day if jou do not desire more of me, in New York, wiL be next Friday Saturday. I hope I can be of further service. I more than hope that I shall hear from you (by tele- graph) before Saturday. If I do.not I shall as- sume that I can be of no further service, and act accordingly. Your obedient servant, Sanford Conoter. Brigadier General Holt, Judge Advocate Gene- ral, Washington, D. C. P. S.— This is the fourth letter that I have written you without having received a reply. I do sincerely hope that I may receive an answer to this, if not to those that preceded it. Respectfully, 8. C. War Department, Bureau of Military Justice. WAsnrNGTOx, November 24, 1806 To ALL Loyal Men : In a former vindication of myself which appeared in the Washington CuKONiCLE of 3d of September, and was adopted by me as "perfectly truthful," extracts from my deposition before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives were given as present- ing a clear and succinct history of the "Conover testimony," and of my relation to it. As a part of that history was also furnished the letter of Conover to me, which led to his emplojmeut by the Government, and in which he gave distinct assurances as to the existence of evidence impli eating Davis and oihers in the assassination of the President, and declared his ability to produce the witnesses, and made an offer of his services to do so. In that vindication it was also alleged that — with the exception of my own brief notes to Conover, and which in themselves afforded no color of imputation against me— all the letters and notes which had been published by the New York Herald, and afterward by other papers, and which had been made the basis of an arraigji men: of my official integrity, were forged and their statements utterly false. It was further affirmed "that nothing beyond what was deemed necessary to meet the actual and reasonable ex- penses of these witnesses was paid them; that they were long held by the Government a waiting the trial which it was anticipated might be ordered in the cases of Davis, Clay, &c., and while thus waiting their expenses were properly met by the Government, and that this was iu accordance with the rule pursued in many other cases — a rule often absolutely essential to main- tain the interests of public justice." Since the date of that vindication proofs have been taken in support of its most important averments, and they are now submitted as unanswerable evidence of the malignity and foulness with which I have been traduced. Protesting against being condemned without having been first heard, I respectfplly ask that these proofs, which will speak for themselves, may beread and con- sidered by all who are willing to know the truth. The genuineness of my own brief business notes to Conover, so far as published, has never been denied, but has been constantly admitted. Their language allows of no construction to my prejudice, and they have been pressed into the service of these conspirators only through the forged letters with which they surrounded them for the purpose of perverting and destroying their true meaning. I say they are genuine, so far as published, because I know not what forged notes or letters purporting to be mine may now be in the hands of this horde of villains, or may hereafter be fabricated by them for use against m3. 9 As the forged letters, &c., referred to — and which have been made the ground of calumni- ous accusations against me in connection with the "Cocover tefitimouy" — all first appeared as original matter in the New York Herald, which continued their publication, with opprobrious imputations on myself, aUer they had been pro- nounced to he spurious; and as that journal has declared that it is 'in no way indebted to Cono- ver for these docnmeute," and as Conoverhim- eelf — by whom or to whom they purport to have been written — utterly rcpuciiaUt. ibem, it must, in the absence of explauation or disclaimer, be held tbct the New Yoik Herald and its rebel coadjutors are directly responsible for their fabrication, and for the slanderous and infamous tiee which has been made of thtm. That falsehood, though guii^ed by the shrewd- est of scoundrel!^, is sure, sooner or later, to trip, Is 6-bown by the fact that ihete conspira tors made Conover seem to write ms from Philadeli..bia, on the ISih of December, 1865, a long an(^ criminative Ittler, whereas, in truth, as is proved by a telegraphic despatch from him on file in the Bureau of Military Justice, he was then at Montreal, Canada, and communicated with me on that very dny from that point. Attention is invited to the statement of the witness, Jii-^eph A. Hoare, that after he gave hL3 Oep iMiiuu I introduced him to the Presi- dent, to whom the deposition was read, and that the President, as well as Secretaries Seward and Stanton, who were present, conversed with him in regard to the remaikable statements it con- tained. This is mentioned as evidence that in taking and collecting this testimony no con- cealment was practised. On the contrary, the depositions, as taken, without exception, were at once communicated to the Secretary of War, and by him to the President and Cabinet, so that the exi^ten'-•e aud char<«cler of these depositions were as well known to these high officials as to myself, aod If any of tbem expressed distrust of the entire truthfulness of the testimony — which then stood wUolly uuiuipeached— I have not been able after diligent inquiry to asceitsin it. Feeling myself entitled to it under the articles of war, I made a formal written demand through Secretary Stantou for a court of ioquiry, with a view to a judicial examination of all the charges which have been made against me, alike in con- nection with the "Conover testimony" and the trial of the assassins of the President. In my letter to the Secretary I said : "As these accusations— utterly false aud groundless as I pronounce tbem to be, and as they are believed to be known to those who gave them utterance to be— are of the gravest im- port, and directly call in queedon my official integrity, and must, if credited, destroy all con- fidence in me as a public officer, and in the bu- reau over which I preside, it seems to be a solemn duty on the part of the Government to have them investigated, and a record of the truth made. My official honor and that >>f this bureau, as well as that of the military tervicj with which I am connected, imperatively de- mand this. I seek and challeDf;e the severest scrutiny of my official conduct in all the matters to which these atrocious accusations relate which can be instituted in the interefats of truth and justice. "I therefore respectfully but earnestly £sk that under the articles of war a court of inquiry, composed of officers of high rank and national reputation, he appointed, whoie duty it shall he to thoroughly examine each and all of said chartjes as preferred against me, and that said court shall be required not merely to repoit tbe facts, but to give their opinion on ihu merits of the case." By reference to the letter of the Secretary of War it will be seen that the President has declined to order this court, alleging that he ^'deems it un- necessary for my vindication,''' This action of the President must be accepted as a full recogni- tion on his part of the groundlessness of these accusations, and neci=S6arily of the baseness of those who have made them. Bu'. while this is 60, I cannot but regret that the court was not ordered, since I believe that the public houQr, deeply involved in my official action, would have bten best guarded, as would have been my own, by making, as could easily have been done, through sworn and unimpeachable testimony, such a record of all the proceedings and conduct impeached as would have silenced forever the poisoned tongues alike of open traitors and of those renegade Unionists who, ignobly crouctt- ing before the Still living spirit of the late re- bellion, are seeking favor and power by abjectly pandering to its resentments. But while teas pre- vented from making my defence under circum- stances which cnuUl not have failed to command the public coulldence, I bave no fears for the issue. The truth, of which I sought to make a judicial record, is mightier than all its enemies combined, and though it may be and often is slow, it is ever surein the end to astert its mastery over falsehood and fraud. From the moment I entered on my present position the Secretary of War has had continual and thorough knowledge of my official cosduct, and a loyal people will not hesitate to give to his language in my behalf the weight to which it is so justly entitled. Such words, so emphatic and honorable to me, and prompted by so com- plete a CO '^prehension of my action, and uttered by such a man and such a patriot as, amid the sublime labors and responsibilities and perils of the times, Edwin M. Stanton has proved him- self to be, may be safely poised in my defence against all the curses and fetid vituperation which can come from the rebel throat— tbat open sepulchre of defamation— from now until doomsday. 10 It is not proposed— for I too well understand how hopeless would be the effort — to correct the mendacious habits of the •wicked mea who coined these calumnies against me, or who have been and are still industriously engaged in giving them circulation. So far as they are concerned, I simply aim yet further to expose and blacken their guilt before the world by aug- menting, through conclusive proofs, the light of that truth against which they have offended and still delight to offend; and having done this, to leave them under the brand of public scorn to pursue, as they doubtless will, the lie they make and love, and whieh seems to be at onee the aliment and the banquet of their lives. This vindication, therefore, be it understood, is not at all offered to traitors here or elsewhere, their aiders, abettors, or sympathizers; nor is it made with any hope or desire of convincing or conciliatiDg them — for by my loyalty and faith- fulness to duty I have long since earned their appeaseless hate, and I spurn and defy it — but it is offered to the honest and true everywhere, who, though they may feel no interest in my own fate, will nevertheless, I am sure, feel an enduring interest in the protection of those principles of justice and loyalty, honor and fair dealing, which are the safeguards of every man's life and reputatiou, and which have been so Bhameleesly violated in my person. J. Holt, Judge Advocate General. [ From the New York Herald of Sept. 26, 1866. 1 War Depajrtment, Bureau of Military Justice, Washington, D. C, September 22, 1866. Mr, James Gordon Bennett : Sir: In the Washington correspondence of New York Herald of yesterday are found two letters, one purporting to have been written to m3self by S. Conover, under date of '"Philadel- phia, December 13, 1865," and the other stated to have been enclosed in the former, and pur- porting to have been written by M. N. Harris to ' Friend Conover," under date of "Harritburg, D-cember 11, 1865," which letters are offered in tuiJ.ort of an atrocious calumny heretofore published against me bv this same correspondent, and from which ni^ ••vindication" has appeared in the Chronicle of this city and other jouruals; and I am now "challenged to deny the genuine- ijHfS and truthfulness of these letters." In reply, 1 declare that until I saw these let- ters in the Herald of yesterday I had never seen or heard of them, or of either of them, or of their conieuts; nor were these letters or either of them, or the subject matter of either, or the man Harris, ever alluded to by Conover in his correspondence, or in any of his numefous per- Bonal conferences with me. I pronounce them, therefore, to be base fabrications, made fo.- the purpose of adjustment to my note to Conover under date of 15th December, 1865, with a view of giving to that note a totally unwarrantable eigniflcation. That note is alleged by your cor- respondent to have been written in reply to Con- over's pretended letter to me of "Philadelphia, ISth December, 1865;" which allegation is wholly untrue. This note of mine, on the con- trary, was in answer to a telegraphic communi- cation — called, it seems, by me, a "letter" — sent to me by Conover from Montreal, under elate of "13th of December, 1865," in which it was stated that he was there with three very'impor- tant witnesses and expecting another, and re- quired more funds, and asking a remittance, and the Sl50 mentioned in my note was euCiOsed to hiru to meet the necessary expenses in bring- ing itiese four witnesses, with himself, to Washington. Neither the note itself nor the remittance had any other object than this, ex- cept the simple oue of urging his speedy return to Washington. Thus the ttale artifice heretofore exposed and denounced of mannfacturlBg letters and notes for the purpose of adjusting them to my own brief communications, iu order to change their import, is here revived, and this audacious work will BO doubt be continued so lung as the public shall show itself sufficiently credulous or gullible to give to these forged papers credit or consider- ation. I cannot but believe the American peo- ple too sensible and too honest to be the dupe of a trick so shallow and shameless. All imputa- tions calling in question the strict integrity of my official action in any connection with the "Conover testimony," as it is termed, which may arise out of these papers, or from any ether publication or source whatever, I pronounce malignantly false in their every intendment and implication. You will do me an act of simple justice by giving the foregoing a place in your columns. J. Holt, Judge Advocate General Deposition of Joseph A. Hoare, taken ai ibe office of Colonel Turner, judge advocate, Wash- ington, D. C, October 18, 1866: District of Columbia, Washington City, ss. Joseph A. Hoare, being duly sworn, deposes as follows: Question. Did you give your deposition before the Judge Advocate General in Washin^toD, D. C, and if so, when, and in relation to what mat- ter? Anfi7.er. I gave my deposition at the olQce of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, D. C, November 4, 1865, relative to the assassina- tion of President Lincoln and the alleged com- plicity of Jefferson Davis aod others therein; and I gave it in the name of William Campbell. Q. \Vere you examined as a witness before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Repre- seHtatives; if so, when, and the subject ma-ler thereof? A. I was examined as a witness before said committee on the 8th day of May, A. D. 1866, and I then and there swore that the deposition I had made at the office of the Judge Advocate General, November 4, 1865, was entirely false, and that the substance of it was fabricated bv a man by the assumed name of "Sanford Cono- ver," but whose real name is Charles A.. Dun- ham; audi now swear that said deposition was and is false, and was fabricated by said Cono- ver, as above stated, and committed to memory by m J self, as prepared by him— though not given to the Judge Advocate General precisely in the language prepared by Conover — a change in the language being caused by the questions propounded by tte Judge Advocate General. Q. Within two or three months there, has appeared in the New York Herald, Xatio7ial Intelligencer, and other papers, two letters pur- 11 portins; to have been written by yourself, in the name of "William Campbell," to Sanford Con- over, of which letters, as published, the follow- ing are copies. The first letter is as followf-: "St. Albans, Vt., November 19, 1865. "I hlk-e jusi parted with the party I thought would do to represent Lamar. He will go into the game and swear all that is wanted, but be places his price at a pretty high figure. He wants -S3,000, and says he won't sell his soul for less. Yon told me not to go above $1,500, but the judee told me alterward that, if neces- sary, I could go 8500 more. But even this is far below the mark. What am I lo do? I have wiittfu the judge how the matter stands, and I hope you will urge him lo come to the terms. Dick is a good fellow, and we can depend on him without fear, and he has the faculty liars need mott— a mighty good memory. I hope to receive a message from you to-morrow teiliug me to strike the bargain. At any rate let me know how to act as soon as possible. "William Campbell." The copy of the second letter published is as fjllowt;: "Dear Sir: I have been trying to see you for several days, but hear that you are out of town. I fchall If ave this at staiion A, that you may get it as soon as you return. I am in great need of more money; my last inveetmenis did not pay, and I am dead broke, and so is Snevil. The judge told me when I last saw him to communi- cate with him only through you, and I don't like to write him; but, I must have money in a few days. Get him to send me 8500, for nothing less will be of any use to me. I wi.sh I could get in bulk all I am to receive, and then I couid get into safer businces; but I suppose you are all afraid that if you should give me all in my hands at once I could not be found when most wanted. I don't like to be suspected, but anything is better than being poor, so I will take what I can get, but of course not less than $500. Don't keep me waiting, for God's sake, for I shall hardly be able to raise cocktails and cigars till I hear from you. ""Truly yours, William Campbell." Slate whether the said letters, or either of thern, were or was written by youreelf. A. I did not write either of them, and they are forgeries, and wholly and entirely false in every particular. Q. Were you in St. Albans, Vermont, in No- vember, 1865; and if eo, on what business? A. I was in St. Albans in November, 1865, under an engagement with the Judge Adv( cate General, to And a witness by the name of Lumar. Sanford Conover and myself had represented to the Judge Advocate General that said Lamar was in Canada, and that I could fled him; and hence I was sent to get him. I wrote lo the Judge Advocate General from St. Albans on the 15; h of November, 1865, stating the progress I had madein finding Lamar, and hadnr)t yut suc- ceeded in finding him. I went from St. Albans to Boston, and wrote again to the Judge Advo- cate General, from that city, Novembc-r 29, 1865, in which I stated that Lamar had been found, and that he and myself might be expected in Washington the latter part of the week there- after. I further swear that I knew no man by the name of Lamar, and tha': the fraud was practised upon the Judge Advocate General by the instigation ajid procurement of Sanford Conover. Q. Was the deposition you gave at the office of the Judge Advocate General, November 4, 1865, written out precisely as given by you? A. The deposition was written out by the Judge Advocate correctly, as stated lo him by me. Q. When you gave said deposition, or after, did you in any way intimate lo the Judge Advo- cate General that your deposition was not true? A. I did not ; and I gave ' him no reason to doubt the integrity of my action. Q. Will you stale whether the money paid you from time to lime was more than enough to pu.y your expenses during the time you were held as a witness by the Government? A. I regarded myself held as a witness six or seven months; also as an agent; and the amount I received did not exceed $650, which was not more than my expenses, including my jour- ney to St. Albans and Boston, and Washington twice. Q. Had you or not frequent conversations with Conover about the witncsRes he was pro- curing to go before the Bureau of Military Jus- tice ? A. I had. Q There has appeared in the Ne w York Herald and other papers a letter purporting to have been written by S. Conover to Judge Advocate Gene- ral Holt, ULder date of "Philadelphia, December 13, 1865," and which letter professed to have enclosed in it a letter from M. N. Harris lo " friend Conover," under date of " Harrisburg, December 11, 1865," which letters the Jndge Advocate General has denounced as forgeries. Now, will you state whether or not, in your con- versations wi'h Conover, he ever mentioned-the name of M. N. Harris, or that he was ever en- gaged in getting te.stimuny at Philadelphia or Harrifburg? A. Conover never spoke lo me about any pjan by the name of M. N. Harris, and I know no such person, and I never knew of his beiuir in Philadelphia or Harrisburg lo obtain testimony. The letter refened to of December 13, 1865, is before me, as published in the New York Herald, and the following is a copy: "PniLADELPniA, Decembtr 13, 1865 "General: I am glad to be able to report that I have succeeded beyond my expectati'iiis. Besides the parties I had in view, we can ount on two, and perhaps four, others, who will tes- tify to all that may be required. After eecuiing Harris, who will prove the most important wit- ness we have yet had, he assured me that he had several friends in Harrisburg wh. m ue was confidHDt would assist us, and as the expense would t;ot be great, I deemed it advisable to de- spatch liim at once to confer with them. He is discreet and shrewd, and no fears r.eed be enter- tained of his blundering. I received a leit r frora him this morning, which I enclose, and this attemoon I shall set ont lo LX-nuin." the parties he refers to. If satisfied that they will answer our purpose, I shall, as so^^n as I can get them thoroughly posted, cotn-.'. on with thcin. I am )i'«r'ul, if we engage all that wt iiuvi- m hand, that my funds will not bold out. so U.ut you had better send me $1C0 mi>re, to be used, if needed. "Direct your Ittter simply to Philadelphia, as I put up from time lolime where I lind it irio.'t convenient lo keep track of the witnesses al- ready in hand. "Respectfully, your obedient eervact, "b. Conover. "Brigadier General Holt, Judge Advocate Gen- eral." 12 Q. Wbcre, in point of fact, was Sanfird Couover ca the ISih of Di-cember, 18G5.' A. According to tuy bbft knowledge and in- foraiation hi was on that day in Canada ; and I bave DOW before me a telegraphic despatch from Baid Conover to the Judge Advocate General, dated " Montreal, December 13, 1865," from •which ii ajjpears that on the day he pretended to have written to the Judge Advocate General from Philadelphia, he was, in fact, in Montreal, Canada. Q. Afier you gave your deposition before the Judge Advocate General, did he or.not accom- pany 5 0U to the President of the Unittd State?, and introduce you to him, end also to the Secre- tary of State, Mr. Seward, and, if bi), ftate what occurred at that interview ? A. He did; and after I had been introduced he read my deposition to the President and Mr. Seward, and then the President and Mr. Seward conversed with me relative to the statements the depostion contained. Duiing this interview ihe Secretary of War, who was then present, also addressed some questions to me relative to my deposition. J. A. Hoare. Sworn and subscribed at Washington, D. C, this 18th day of October, 1866, before me, Geo C. Thomas. Notary Public. Deposition of William H. Roberts, taken at the office of Colonel Tamer, judge advocate, Washington city, October 18, 1866: William H. Ruberts, being duly sworn, de- poses as foUovTs: Quf stion. Did you at any time give your de- posiiion at the office of the Judge Advocate General, in Washington, D. C, and if so, in re- lation to what matter? Answer. I did yive my deposition bt fore the Judge Advocate General on the fourth day of November 186.5, relative to the assassination of President Lincoln and the alleged complicity of Jefferson Davis and others therein. I gave said deposition in the name of "Joseph Soevil," and at the same time that Joseph A Hoare, alias "Campbell," gave his. I further say that afterward, in the month of May, 18G6, I was examined as a witness before the Jiiriiciary Committee of the House ot Representatives, having been duly subpoenaed to atteid, and then and there, being duly sworn, I testified that the ( eposition gifen by rue before the Judge Advocate General on the fourth day of November, 1S65, was wholly and entirely false, and that the same was fabricated by v. person who assumed the name of "Sanford Conover," but whose real name is Charles A. Dunham, and I now reiterate that said deposition was and is false, and was, in its subttaoce, fabricated by said Dunham, alias "Conover." The said Dunham wrote out what he desired me to swear to, and I committtd the same to memory from his manuscript, and then repeated the same (though not precisely in the same language) substantially as my deposition in reply to the questions asked by the Judge Advocate Gene- ral. The said manuscript I had in my posses- sion some time afterward, and finally I gave it up to said Dunham, alias Conover, and at his request. I had said manuscript in my pocket at the time I gave my deposition, but I did not ex- hibit it or refer to it while at the oflice of the Judge Advocate General in any way. I further state that my deposition was given in answer to questions addressed to me by the Judge Advo- cate Gi-Df ral, and that my answers to said ques- tions were correctly written down by him. Q. How long a time did ycm consider your- self held as a witness by the liovernment? A. Between six and seven months. Q. What amount of money was paid^you hy the Government or its agents? A. Not exceeding the sum of four hundred dollars, which was really not enough to meet my expenses during the lime. The understand- ing was with the agent of the Government that my expenses should be paid, which to this time has not been done. Q. In the New York Herald of August 24, 1866, and subsequently in other papers, thtre appeared a letter purporting to have been writ- ten by you under the name of "Joseph Snevil," to Sanford Conover, of date "New York, No- vember 14, 1865," of which the following is 'a copy, as published: "Westchestbr House. "New York, November 14, 1865. ' 'iI/>. • Savford Conover : "Dear Sir: I have been looking for more than a week for the ^500 draft promised me from you or the judae, but have been .disap- pointed. I dou't think I have been treated ex- actly on the square, for Campbell has had more by nearly 81,000 than I have, and yet I stretched my conscience just as much as he did, and my t-stimony, as you and the judge both said, was jast as important as his. "I don't like to find fault, but I like still less to beg or to borrow, as I am of)liged to, from Campbell, when I ought to be just as well oflf as he. "I don', mean to complain, for I know you have much to attend to, and can't do everythintc at once, but as all the rest have been better paid than myself I ough'. not to be forgot. "Please do not fail to send draft by return mail, for you know this is an awful place to be without money, and your petitioner will ever pray. Respectfully, yours, "Joseph Snevil." Now, will you state if said letter was written by yourself, or not? A. I did not write said letter; it is a forgery, and all its statements are false. Q. Have you had frequent conversations with "Conover" about the witnesses he was pro- curing for the Government? A. I bad conversations with him often. Q Did your ever hear him mention the name of M. N. Harris, and did you know or ever hear of Couover's being engaged in Philadelphia or Harri?-burg in looking up witnesses? A. Conover in his frequent conversations with me never mentioned any person by the name of M. N. Harris, and I have no knowledge that Conover was ever in Philadelphia or Harrisburg in search of witnesses, and I am confident that if he had been there he would have told me. Q. While giving your deposition before the Judge Advocate General, or at any other time while held as a witness, did you communicate or intimate to him in anywise that your deposi- tion was not truthful, or did you make any com- munication to the Judge Advocate General from which he could have suspected the truthfulness of your testimony or integrity of yourcharacter? A. I did not, and I gave no intimation to any ofilc;"r of the Government that said deposition was false until I disclosed it to Colonel Turner, judge advocate, in the month of May, 1866. who was sent to New York by the Judiciary Com- 13 rni'tt^e of the Hou?e to procure the attend ?nce of witiifSi-es. W. H Roj-.ehts. [G. C. T , October 18, 1866.] bwijru and su^iecribed at VVashint(ion, D. C, ihis iSth October, 1SC6, before me, Geo. C. Thomas, Notary Public. Letter from Hou. James F. Wilson, chairman of the Jadiciary Committee of the Hout-e of Representatives : Faiufield, Iowa, September 29, 1860. My Ueak SiK : Ou my return home from a canvass of my district, I received your favor of the 7th inst. I am not surprised at the attack made on you by the friends of Jefferson Davis, for tbey will spare no pains to shield him from the pr.nalty of his great crime. But 1 know that, ther-^ is no just ground upon which to base snch attacks. In the discharge of my official duiies relative to the charge of complicity in the plot to destroy the life of President Lincoln, made against Davis and others in the proclamation of Presi- dent Johnson, I acquired personal knowledge of your whole course of action concerning the case. After the House of Representatives had di- rected the Committee on the Judiciary to investi- gate the charge made by President Johnson in Eaid proclamation against Davis and others, you manifested the utmost solicitude in favor of a thorough sifting of all the testimony in the pos- session of the Bureau of Military Justice, and especially that which had been collected through the instrumentality of Sanford Conover. Tou earnestly urged the committee to send for the witnesses whose depositions yoa had taken in the Conover branch of the case, notwithftaod- iEg ihose depositions seemed fair, truthful, a^d no suspicion had been cast upon them. The committee not knowing where said wit- nesses could be found, you proposed to send Colonel Turner to New York city in order to discover the whereabouts of the witnesses and to procure their attendance. Your proposition was approved by the committee, and Colo>jel Turner visited New York. His visit; and inves- tigQlion led to a suspicion that Conover had practised a fraud upon the authorities. This only increased your earnestness in asking for a complete sifting of the testimony given by the witnesses procured by Conover. A plan was agreed upon by a part of the committee and yourself to have Conover confronted before the committee by one of his most important wit- nesses. This plan was carried out, and resulted in discrediting the Conover branch of the case. No one more promptly recognized this fact than yourself, and yoa so stated, acd advised the withdrawal from the consideration of the com- mittee of the testimony of all the witnesses procured by Conover. The report of the com- mittee in no sense rests upon the t-ttimony of these witnesses— that testimony was wholly dis- regarded. Your action in this matter was most fair and impartial, and afforded satisfactory evidence that jour only desire in the premises was to arrive at the truth. I wish the whole country could be as well informed of your conduct in this regard 88 is the Committee on the Judiciary— you would need no other defence. Yours, truly, James F.' Wilson, Plon. Joseph Holt, Washington, D. C. Letters from Hoas. George S. Boutwrll and D. Morris, members of the Judiciary Com- miuee of the House of Representatives: Groton, Mass., September 13, 1866. Sik: I have observed the studied auempts makug by the friends of Jefferson Divis to injure your reputaiion by imputing to you im- proper coudnct in your efforts to afCertain itie trutb and l)ring to jusiicr all those iho were ooucenied in tbe assaBfination of President Lin- coip. A<* a member of the Judiciary Co.-umittee of ttie House of Representatives I had know- Itd^iC of all the proceedings, and I citn bear ready and full testimony to your disinterested, im- }).^iLia!, and patriotic seivices in aid of ju.siice. It is true ibat certain witnesses who riepo.-ed before you afterward rel^ac^^d their statemer.t^, but the evidence is conclusive that joa t)elieved their origiual statements to be true, and tha' if tbey were false you were ttie party Oect^ivfd. The commiitte had ample opp «rtuiiliit-s ti witness your conduct and bearing, and I am persuaded that, with the exception of Mr. Rogers, all approved and justified yimr conduct in every particular. I have no floul>t that, the machinations of your enemies will fail signally, as surely they ought to fail. I am, very truly, Geo S Boutwell. Hon. Joseph Holt, Wasbiugtou, D 0. Penn Yan, N. Y , October 15, 1S66. Colonel E. TV. Dejinis: My Deak Sir: Yours of the 3d of September ult., with the enclosed article from tun Wash- ington Chronicle, came to baud during my absence, and by accident it was mislalcl. U has just come to luy attention, and I ij^sieu to reply, that the article fri.m the CniiO.NiCLS, aa far as my knowledge is concertied, is accaraie. I think! was with the Ju'iicijry Committee at each meeting when Judge Advocate Holt was present. I noticed, and remarked to members of the committee at the time, that Judge Holt evinced a candor and a patriotism equal to any- thing I had ever witLCssed. His actions aud asseitious evinced a desire to elicit the, truth aud only the truth. He was williuu; aud appa- rently anxious to aid the committee iu the in- vestigation, aud he did it in a way that ius-pired in me the profoundest respect. I sincerely hope that the Government may ever be favored with a judge advocate as iuteUigent, disinterested for self, and as vigilant to promote the interes.ts of the Government, and develop the truth, as was manifested oy Judge Advocate Holt. I write in great haste as I leave town in a few moments, and am truly yours, D. MoiiKis. Latter from Brevet Colonel L. C. Turner, judge advocate, on duty in WashiDLriotj: Wah Department, Washington City, September 10, 1S66. General J. Holt, Judge Advocate Gtncral: General: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8tu instant, iu which you state: '= A base endeavor is being made through the disloyal press of the coHLtiy, acting in the interests of Jefferson Davis and the rebi-'llion, and in co-operation with Sanlord Conover, to impress the public mind with the belief that I, in some way, countenanced or was involved with Conover ii: the subornation of the witnesses produced by hitn before the Bureau of Military Justice, and whose testimony is now discredited as having been fabricated by him- self. 14 Ton also state: "A further imprcFsion is eougQC lo be made, in utter disregard of the facts, that the crime thus committed by CoDover was LOt discovtrea by any e^ency of iiiioe, but in despite of endeavors on my part tJ vi'^^^nt the exposure." And inas-much as I, your agent and acting under y< ur directions, was c;>Dncctert wiih ex- posing aud disclosing the falcity of the testi- mony produced by Cnnover and his snbornaiion of witiu-sses, you nqaest me to "malie a brief but difrtinct statement of all that occurred in conni'Ction with this testimony, in any manner beariuK on the atrocious calumnies agaicst me," &e. In compliance with jour request I rtepeclfuUy state: That the 26'-h of April last jon informed me that certain ^icrsors had made deposi'.tons be- fore the Bartau of Military Justice relative to the alleged connection of Jefif. Davis, C. C. Clay, aiid others with the assassination of Presi- dent Lincoln; that the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives were invt^siigating the matter, and you were unwilliug that the depositions should be received tis testimony ■without being tested and verilied by tbe personal examination and cross-examination of the wit- nesses t)y the committee. You seemed anxious that the w.rn esses should be produced hetore the commitiae, and direct td and instructed me to proceed to New Yotk and obtain their attendaoce. You furnished me with tbe names and proba- ble whereabouts of the ivitntssef, viz: Sanford Conover; post offi.^a address, Station A. New York. Joseph Saevil; post office address. Station A, New York. William Campbell, Faruhom B. Wright, and John McGiU, supposed to be in or about New York; John H. Paiten, supposed to be in St.. Louis; Sarah Douglas and Mary Knapp, sup- posed to be in Canada. Yon advised that Wright should be sent to find Fatten, and Conover to go to Canada for the two women. You sent a telegram to Snevil to meet me at the Astor House ttie morning of the 27th of April, aud gave me a letier of intro- duction to Conover, of which tne foliowiog is a true copy : " Was Department, " Bureau of Military Justice. " WAsniNGTON, D. C, April 20, 1866. " JJfr. Sanford Conover: " Dear Sir : Tbis will be presented to jou by Colonel I'urner, judge advocate, who will com mnnicate with you fully in reeard to the ha-i- ness which takes him to New York. The Judi- ciary Comrniiteeof the House of Representatives are anxious to secure, at as early a day es possi- ble, the attendance of the witnesses named in a list in Colonel Turner's hands, end I write to request tbat you will at once use all your efforts to Secure that result. You probably ktow the whereabouts of most of them, and torongh yoar personal exertions, aided by others, may succeed in bringing these witnesses, or at least the greater part of them, before the committee. I saw Mr. Wilson this morning, who read me your letter, and it is at his instance that I write you, having no doubt but that from the. infortaa- tion you have, and your past faithfulness, you will be ooth able and willing to do in the in- terest of truth and public justice what is now required of you. " Very respectfully, your obedient servaLt, "J. Holt, "Judge Advocate General." And the sole object of said letter was my iu- iroduc'.ion to Conover, and have him aid in pro- curing the witnesses before the committee. All the witnesses were unknown to me, and I was not before advised that their depositions had been taken, and there was no intimation that there was any suspicion entertained by any one tbat their testimony wss not perieetly truthful and reliable. I arrived at the Astor House oh the morning of April 27th last, and after repeated delays unil annoying difficulties ot)tairied interviews with Conover, Campbell, and Suevii, and a coiiy of my report in this regard, made at your request, to the Judiciary Committee, is herewith en- closed. Through the disclosures of Campbell, and otherwise, 1 asceitaioed undonbtingly that all the witnesses procured by Conover before the Bureau of Military Justice deposed under ficii- liiius names; that taeir verified statements were false, and fabricated by Conover, and that Cono- ver was the author of the atrocious scheuie which resulted in such astounding perjuries and and subornalions. Thursday, May 3, I returned to Washington, and Campbell accompauiea me. After report- iug to you, and your interview with Campbell, a telegram was sent at your instance to Comiver, nqneeting his immediate attendance before the Jiiiticiary Committee. Conover, having no suspicion that Campbell and myself were in Washington, came on at once, and, jrreatly to his surprise, he was con- fronted by Campbell in the Judiciary Cjmmittee room, which was the result of an arrangement between you, Mr. Wilson, chairman of the Com- mittee on the Judiciary, and myself. After Campbell had been examined Conover asserted that the statement of Campbell — that the testimony given !■> him before the Bureau of Military Justice ha.) been fabricated by him (Conover) — was falsf, and the Judiciary Com- mittee permitted him to return to. New York in charge of the SergKi'it-sl-Arms to procurt- the attendance of the witnesses whose deposiiiODS had been taken wi h those of Campbell, Saevil, and others. Be u fi tlii»t officer on arriving at the Astor H'tuse, and could not afterward be found. At your instan.;e and under your directions I again went to New York. .May 15, with C^mp- beli and tbe S r^iiaut-at- Arms, to subpoena the other witi'es-. ^ and proenve their attendance bef.ire the Jn neiary Coinoii^.tee. Snevil. We.' i ill, Wright., and Patten were found and sii^>pa3aned, ai>d I returned with Snevil to Wnshitigiou. TD'5 others failed to appear. S-iOVil was exaiained by tbe C'lmmiiiee, and fully c irroborared Campbell as to the falsity aud fabiR'-ition of the depotiiious. Again leltrring you to the copy of my report to the Judiciary Committee, enclosed, which fnroishes in greater detail the action taken by me, while acting under yonr direction and in- structi I'je, I beg leave to state iu eot elusion that in my judgment the base calumnies with which "tr'iitnrs, confessed perjurers, and suborners" are jiursuiog you are as preposterous as atro- cious, and will result in increasing instead of lessening the enduring confidence of all true- 15 hearted and honest- minded men in your emi- nent fidelity and faithfuiness as a Governmental officer, and your undoubted loyalty as a citizen. I Lave the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, L. C Tuhneu, Judge Advocate. War Department, Washington City, November 8, 1866. Oen. Joseph Holt, Judge Advocate General: General : I have the honor to say I deem it proper to inform you that within a few days, and eince Sanford Conover's arrest, I have had seve- ral conversations with him, in the course of which I brought to his notice and exhibited to him, as published, the various letters which first appeared in the New York Herald, and have since been copied into other papers, purporting to be from or to him, and intended by their statements and intimations to criminate your- self, and desired him to say what he knew in regard to them. The letters to which 1 refer may be described as follows, viz : one, signed "M," dated 17th April, 1860, and addressed to Bald Conover; one bearing the signature of ''Wil- liam Campbell," and addressed to Conover, under date of "St. Albans, Vt., November 19, 1865;" one signed "Carter," and addressed likewise to Conover, dated "Quartermaster's Olficp, April 37, 1866;" one signed "Joseph Snevil," addressed to Conover, and dated " West- che.-ter House, November 14, 1865;" one signed "3. Conover," addressed to Patten, and dated "Epl rata Mountain House, June 8, 1866;" and one iJaied "Philadelphia, December 13,1865," Bignt-d "8. Conover," and addressed to "Briga- dier General Holt, Judge Advocate General," and proftBsicgto have enclosed within it a letter to Said Conover from "M. N. Harris," dated "Harrisburg, December 11, 1865." Conover declared to me unhesitatingly and distiLctly that he had written no such letters to jou as the foregoing, purporting to have been written by him to yourself; and, farther, he stated that he had not received from the parties above named, or either of them, any such letters as. those above set forth, and which profess to have bet-n written by said parties to said Con- over, and that he knew nothing in regard to them. Wtiile he thus, in efftct, declared all thet-e paptrs to be fabricated and false, he in- sisted thai he did not know by whom they had been manufactured for publication. Several of these letters, as published, will be found set out fully in the depositions of Joseph Hoare and William H. Roberts, recently taken at my office. Feeling some solicitude to know what motive could have prompted Conover to suborn the witnesses produced by him before the Bureau of Military Justice, I asked him; and he replied, and requested me to state to you, that it was solely a desire to avenge himself on Jeff. Davis, by whose order, he said, he had been confined for some six months in Castle Thunder. He alleged that not only had he been thus mal- treated, but that his wife had also been insulted by Davis. He also assured me that the testi- mony he gave on the trial of the assassins of President Lincoln before the military commis- sion was true in every particular, and asserted, again and again, that Davis was connected with said assassination, and as to that there was no sort of question. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, L. C Turner. Brevet Colonel and Judge Advocate. War Department, Washington City, November 14, 1866. Sir : Your letter of the lltb of September, applying for a court of inquiry upon certaia im- putations therein mentioned as made against you, of official misconduct in relation to ibe prosecution of Mrs. Surratt and others, charged with the assassination of the late Prc^iJent. Abraham Lincoln, and in the preparation of testimony against Jefferson Davis and- others, charged with complicity in said crime, has been submitted to the President, who deems it un- necessary for your vindication to order a court of inquiry. In communicating the President's decision, it is proper for me to express my own conviction that all charges and imputations against your official conduct and character are, in my judg- ment, entirely groundless. So far as I have any knowledge or information your official duties, as Judge Advocate General, in the cases referred to and in all others, have been performed fairly, justly, and with distinguished ability, integrity, and patriotism, and in strict conformity with the requirements of your high office and the obliga- tions of an f fflcer and a gentleman. Your obedient servant, Edwin M. Stanton, Secretat-y of War. Brevet Major General JosEPn Holt, Judge Advocate General. v^ I w.