menu_book Chapter 13

part four of henry wirt's commander of andersonville confederate prison trial and execution by united states army staff judge advocate part four closing statement of judge advocate prosecutor part nine without pretending to make an argument in this connection desiring only to aid the court in determining the fact i will try to arrange the evidence under this branch of charge second in chronological order the first proof of injury by the dogs where death resulted was some time in the month of may eighteen sixty four i have already cited at some length the testimony of the witnesses bearing upon this point and will not recapitulate but will merely refer the court to the witnesses they are william henry jennings page twelve forty six manuscript page five forty five bernard corrigan page thirteen fifty one manuscript page five ninety eight and james e marshall page seventeen fourteen manuscript page seven six six another case which is clearly defined in the evidence occurred about the eleventh of july and is stated with some particularity of time place and circumstances by a witness whom the court must remember as one of intelligence and candor

to his testimony i call especial attention it has already been briefly cited but i will give his language in greater length john l yonker after having related the circumstances as i have before given them goes on to narrate page twenty one eighty six manuscript page nine four seven the death scene of his murdered comrade and what occurred at the time and from all the circumstances together with the dying declarations of the unfortunate victim we have presented a clear case of murder question did he the dying man in that same conversation say anything as to how he had been injured a yes sir question state what he said a we questioned him and he replied in a feeble voice that he had got about thirty-five or forty miles and was strongly pursued by the hounds that as he was very weak coming out of the hospital he tried to climb up a bush but was pulled down by one of the hounds and so disabled that he could proceed no further we had to stir him up once in a while give him a regular shaking so that he might answer a few more questions because he was expiring i saw him after he was dead

q when was that a just a few days before the six raiders were hung which was on the eleventh of july the testimony of joseph adler and george conway heretofore cited corroborates if that be necessary the testimony of william another case which stands out clearly in the evidence is that related by thomas w way page twelve fifty six manuscript page five fifty two this witness in company with two comrades had made his escape they were overtaken by the dogs this is his testimony on that point q do you remember anything about a soldier being torn to pieces by hounds a yes sir he was a young fellow whose name i don't know i knew him by the name of fred he was about seventeen years old when we heard the dogs coming i and another prisoner who was with me being old hands climbed a tree he tried to do so but he had not got up when the hounds caught him by the foot and pulled him down and in less than three minutes he was torn all to adams q was turner there a turner was close behind he got up just as the man was torn to pieces and secured the hounds and we came down

q did fred die a yes sir i should think so he was all torn to pieces q was any other of your number torn at the same time a no sir q when was that occurrence a in the latter part of august eighteen sixty four just before we were moved from andersonville which was on the twenty fourth of august q what did turner say at the time a he said it is good for the son of a bitch i wish they had torn you all three to pieces it would seem impossible to doubt a statement so clearly made and under circumstances calculated to impress the incident indelibly upon the mind of the witness corroborative of mr way however is the testimony of samuel frank maddox who says page eleven sixty eight manuscript page five thirteen that turner told him one day at the graveyard that he had let the dogs tear a man to pieces in the woods which from coincidence of time and circumstances seems to be the same incident as that given by way the next case of murder by dogs and as clearly defined as any previously given

is the one related by dr a w barrows who was on duty in the hospital he says page two forty four manuscript page eighty seven i remember a man making his escape from the hospital in july and being overtaken by the hounds a large portion of his ear was torn off and his face mangled and he was afterwards brought into the hospital that man got well this was in july or august eighteen sixty four i do not remember the exact date i remember also that at the end of august or in september eighteen sixty four a man who had been bitten badly by the dogs in trying to make his escape was brought into my ward and died the wound took on gangrene and he died he was a union prisoner q was he trying to escape from the stockade or from the hospital a i am not certain q when did he die a i cannot state the exact date it was either the last of august or the fore part of september q how many days after he was torn by the dogs did he die

a well if my memory serves me right i should say four or five days after i know the wound took on gangrene and he died q did he die from the effects of the wound a indirectly i think he did not directly it was from the effects of the gangrene q was the gangrene manifested in the wound or elsewhere a in the wound in no other part he was bitten through the throat on the side of the neck and gangrene set in and he died question was the gangrene the result of the bite in your opinion a yes sir it was this is confirmed by the testimony of james p stone already cited of the facts as presented by dr barrows's testimony there can be no doubt he was an officer on duty in the rebel hospital and is a gentleman whose credibility has in no way been doubted it might perhaps be urged on the part of the defence that as the witness states that the death of the prisoner occurred from gangrene directly and from the wound indirectly the benefit of the doubt thus raised must be given to the accused let me remind the court of the law governing in such cases it is laid down in two starkey's evidence seven eleven that

it is sufficient in law to prove that the death of the party was accelerated by the malicious act of the prisoner although the former labored under a mortal disease at the time of the act and it is sufficient to constitute murder that the party die of the wound given by the prisoner although the wound was not originally mortal but because so in consequence of negligence or unskilful treatment the evidence shows in this case that the patient died of gangrene that the gangrenous affection was confined to the wound that he was not so affected before the wound but was affected immediately afterwards that he did not die of any other disease or malady the fact therefore being clear that the death was occasioned or certainly accelerated by the wound there is no other course left you but to find that the case stands in the same position as if the man had been killed on the spot by the dogs we have thus presented a classified analysis of the evidence bearing upon the charge of murder by the use of hounds the only defence set up under this charge is given in the statement made by the accused to the court and is an attempt to confound the prisoner

with all the instances given by different witnesses and as it was shown in the evidence of the defense that frenchy did not die you are asked to conclude that this prisoner must be acquitted of this branch of the charges now it has not been assumed at any time by the prosecution nor was an attempt made to prove it that the man frenchy so called was killed the incident referred to by the defense was one occurring within plain sight of the post the witnesses heath castellan and mohan rebel officers testified with regard to it early in the prosecution and made the facts so clear that it is somewhat surprising that counsel would attempt to raise a reasonable doubt in behalf of their client by an attempt to confound this case with the numerous others so clearly and distinctly defined in the testimony the court will bear with me a moment while i give in this connection a part of the prisoner's own statement of the frenchy occurrence and i give it for the reason that it discloses a fact which has been persistently denied that the hounds used were ferocious and dangerous to human life and for the additional reason that it shows from the prisoner's own admission

his control over the dogs and his responsibility for whatever injury resulted from their use the language of his statement is this frenchy again effected his escape by jumping into a thicket near the creek the matter was reported to me i had the dogs sent for they soon came on his track he took to a tree one of the pursuing party not i fired a pistol close to him to induce him to come down he was not hurt but he dropped or fell from the tree into a mud hole when the dogs rushed upon him i jumped on the dogs and drove them off here as elsewhere it would have been safer and wiser for the accused to have rested his case upon the evidence without attempting explanation in the next place i will proceed to recite the evidence as to cases of death from confinement in the stocks and in the chain-gang william krause page fourteen fifty nine manuscript six forty two states that a few days before the raiders were hung which was the eleventh of july a man died in the tent next to the one occupied by witness that the death occurred the next day after being relieved from the stocks in which he had been confined about two weeks without intermission

George W. Gray, p. 2699, m. p. 1157, testified that he was in stocks the last of August or the first of September, and that the third man from him, a sick man, died while in them, that the Negroes took him out of the stocks after he was dead and hauled him away. Nazareth Allen, p. 744, m. 305, states that in August 1864 he saw a man who died in the chain gang or stocks. He thinks it was the stocks. Alex Kennel, p. 1291, m. 556, testifies that in February 1865 a man was taken out of the stockade in the evening and put in the stocks and kept there all night and that he died in eight hours after being released that the man said he was chilled till he was insensible

james p stone page twenty two twelve manuscript page nine fifty six testifies that he saw he thinks it was some time in june a man in the chain gang sick with chronic diarrhoea that he was kept in the gang until it was impossible for him to move that he was taken out and left at the guard-house near the stocks the band was left on his neck and the ball on his leg and he died with these on him james culver page twenty eighty manuscript page nine one four testifies that he saw twelve men in the chain-gang almost every day for a month or six weeks one of them was very poorly and looked as though he could hardly carry himself those in the gang complained about his being sick he caused them a great deal of trouble by reason of his having diarrhoea witness afterwards saw the man out of the gang but he still had the ball upon his legs and the band about his neck he afterwards died in the guard-house witness saw the irons taken from him after he was dead he died in three or four days after being taken out of the chain gang the witness thinks he died some time in july in connection with this some testimony given by heath dillard and honeycutt rebel soldiers who were on duty at andersonville may be pertinently introduced john f

page 780 manuscript page 317 testifies that in the month of august eighteen sixty four a man was sick in the chang gang and the gang objected to his being in it because of his condition that there were twelve men in the chang gang william dillard page 803 manuscript page 328 testifies that in august he guarded the chain gang one day and night when twelve men were in it one of them was very low and had to go out every five or ten minutes that the others of the chain gang wanted him taken out that when the man was taken out he could just stand up calvin honeycutt page eight twenty four manuscript page three thirty six states that he guarded the chain gang for one or two days and nights that one of the men was sick and the rest wanted him taken out john paske page sixteen ninety five manuscript page seven fifty seven states that some time in july he saw a man put in the chain gang and saw his dead body after he was taken out robert tate page twenty six fifty manuscript page eleven thirty three testifies that on one occasion he does not know the date one man was put in the chain gang when very sick

that he remained in it for about two days that the surgeon told the prisoner that he had better take the man out that the prisoner gave orders to have him released and the next morning he saw him hauled away to the graveyard the evidence here briefly recited presents two distinct murders by the use of the stocks and one by the chain gang the cases presented by william kraus and george w gray cases of death by the stocks come directly within the general principles of law before cited the witness krause after narrating the circumstances as heretofore briefly given testifies as follows on cross-examination q was there anything the matter with him besides being in the stocks a no sir he was a hearty man before he went there q you did not see him in the stocks outside a yes sir when i went out to get some medicine q how many times did you get out in that way a i used to go out nearly every other day to get medicine q was not the doctor's place close to the gate a yes sir about twenty feet from it at the upper end the south-west end q could you see the stocks from there a i could

q how far was it from where you got the medicine to captain wirz's headquarters a about three hundred feet q with nothing to obstruct the view a no sir q and you saw the men in the stocks for two weeks when you went out in that way a yes sir q how was that man injured who died a weakness he was starved q was he not starved instead of being hurt by the stocks a that was one thing that killed him q was it not the principal thing a yes this occurred as the witness states about the time the raiders were hung the evidence it is true does not present a case of death directly attributable to the stocks but it is clear that death resulted from a conjunction of circumstances of which the stocks was one important element all being the result of the orders of the accused it is immaterial whether the man died from the injuries inflicted by the stocks alone the circumstances fully bring the case within the principle already cited that it is sufficient in law to prove that the death of the party was accelerated by the malicious act of the prisoner

the second case of this class is presented by the testimony of george w gray the witness had made his escape was caught by the dogs and returned to the prison he testifies page twenty six ninety eight manuscript page eleven fifty seven i was brought back to andersonville prison and taken to wirz's quarters i was ordered by him to be put in the stocks where i remained for four days with my feet in a block and a lever placed over my legs with my arms thrown back and a chain running across the arms i remained four days there in the sun that was my punishment for trying to get away from the prison q do you know anything about a person dying in the stocks a i do at the same time a young man was placed in the stocks the third man from me he died there he was a little sick when he went in and he died there q do you know his name a i do not if i heard it i have forgotten it q when did this occur a that was about the last of august or the first of september eighteen sixty four q are you certain he died a i am the negroes took him out of the stocks after he was dead threw him into the wagon and hauled him away

this witness is strongly corroborated by the rebel soldier nazareth allen who pp 744 manuscript pp 305 testifies question do you know anything about a prisoner having died in the stocks answer yes sir one died in the chain gang or stocks i won't be certain which but i think in the stocks q when was it a i think some time in august 1864 q do you know what was the state of his health when he was put in a i do not know what his sickness was q what was his appearance a he appeared to be sick when i saw him i saw him only once or twice and afterwards i saw him dead Q. How long was this man confined in the stocks? A. I cannot say. There were several in the stocks.

Q. Do you know for what this man was placed in the stocks? A. I do not. I think it was for trying to escape. Q. Where were these stocks or this chain gang with reference to Captain Wirtz's headquarters? A. They were between Captain Wirtz's headquarters and the stockade. question on the road you would take in going to the stockade answer yes sir in reference to this occurrence gray is so strongly corroborated by allen that i do not deem it necessary to comment on the evidence more particularly

There is still another case of death by the use of stocks to which I ask your attention, as giving, besides the fact itself, proof that these punishments were continued until almost the time of breaking up of the prison. This is the case mentioned by Alex Kennel, who says, page 1291, manuscript, page 566, I have seen them, the prisoners, put in the stocks. One special act which I know of occurred last February. In that case, a man was taken out of the stockade in the evening, about four o'clock, and kept in the stocks all night.

He was turned into the stockade the next morning at nine o'clock, and he died in less than eight hours. He died in the stockade. Question. What was the condition of the man when taken from the stockade? Answer. He was apparently as healthy as any prisoner in the stockade.

What was done with him during the night? He was kept all night in the stocks, which were outside the stockade. Did he die from the effects of the stocks? That was his supposition. It was a very cold night. Did you talk with that man during his dying moments?

Yes, sir. I talked with him an hour before he died. With what belief was he impressed? Answer. He was impressed with the belief that he was chilled to death that night in the stocks. Question. Did he expect to die? Answer. He did not expect to live from his conversation.

He did not eat anything after he came into the stockade. Question. What did he tell you? Answer. He told me that he was kept in the stocks from the time he was taken out until about eight o'clock in the morning. He was chilled so thoroughly that night that he was insensible.

Question. Did you see him after he died? Answer. I helped to carry him to the gate. Question. Did you know his name? Answer. No, sir, I did not know his name. I never inquired it. He belonged to a Pennsylvania regiment.

Question. You are certain about the time? Answer. I am certain that it occurred about the 15th of February, 1865. I come now to notice the deaths resulting from confinement in the chain-gang. There is some evidence of more than one death having occurred by these means, but aside from one instance, the testimony is so vague and unsatisfactory that I do not ask the court

to consider it. There is one case, however, so clearly defined, so fully proved, as to admit of no doubt. This is the case the court will readily remember as occurring in the chain-gang of twelve, The facts in this case are given so clearly and by so many witnesses, a synopsis of whose testimony I have already presented, that the circumstances, I have no doubt, are fresh in the memory of the court, and I will therefore consume no further time by quoting particularly the evidence. The eyewitnesses of this occurrence, which seems to have been one of the most sad and cruel of the whole list, present an array of testimony which cannot be overthrown and which there has been no attempt on the part of the defense to explain away.

The witnesses fix this occurrence about the time the raiders were hung. The testimony is given by James P. Stone, page 2212, manuscript, page 956, James Jasper Culver, page 2080, manuscript, page 914, John F. Heath, a rebel soldier, page 786, manuscript, page 317, William Dillard, a rebel soldier, page 803, manuscript, page 328, Calvin Honeycutt, a rebel Soldier, p. 824, m. p. 336, John Paschal, p. 1695, m. p. 757, Robert Tate, p. 2650, m. p. 1133,

and James H. Davidson, p. 933, m. p. 384. Before proceeding to notice the evidence as to the acts of murder committed immediately under the prisoner's orders or by his own hand, allow me to remark that the court, in considering these specific acts, will hardly overlook the confirmatory evidence embraced in the testimony as to the general language and conduct of the accused towards the prisoners. I submit that his language and conduct, as exhibited in the testimony,

furnish such evidence of malice as to raise a strong presumption of guilt. Wharton, in his Criminal Law, page 240, speaks of the presumption of guilt from declarations of intentions and threats from which the presumption of guilt may be drawn with great strength, when there is preliminary ground laid. On this principle I maintain the numerous well-proven declarations and threats of the accused, evincing his utter indifference whether

the prisoners lived or died, nay, his desire that they should die, and his ambition to compete with rebel generals in the field by killing off as many Union soldiers as possible, are justly to be viewed as confirmatory of the evidence in regard to the specific acts of murder laid to his charge, and as similar proof of malice on his part, raising a presumption of guilt against him in reference to specific murderous acts alleged, the court will not, I think, disregard the general

evidence of his brutal treatment of prisoners, exhibiting toward them a malignity of temper of which murder would be but the natural outgrowth. The conduct and the expressions of the accused, as proved throughout the whole evidence, show a vindictively malicious feeling towards the prisoners, and this general malice is sufficient to furnish probable cause for the special acts of killing testified to by the witnesses, particularly as in almost every instance of

killing the act itself was accompanied by declarations indicating strongly a malicious and willful intent. In discussing the murders alleged to have been committed under the prisoner's direct orders, the first case that claims attention is that in which the victim was a one-legged soldier known among the prisoners as Chickamauga. The court will pardon me for dwelling somewhat at length on this case, as it is one of those, too, which the prisoner has singled out as the only

cases worthy of a serious attempt at defense in connection with the charge of murder. Some of the witnesses who narrate the facts of this occurrence are S. D. Brown, page 457, manuscript page 183, O. S. Belcher, page 882, manuscript 361, J. R. Acuff, page 1089, manuscript page 471, Thomas Hall, page 982, manuscript, page 408, J. Adler, page 1215, manuscript, page 532, Gottfried Bruner, page 1333, manuscript, page 589, O. B. Fairbanks, page 1023, manuscript,

page 430, E. L. Kellogg, page 1073, manuscript, page 460, A. J. Spring, page 716, manuscript, page 293, C. E. Tibbles, page 2041, manuscript, page 897, J. E. Marshall, page 1716, manuscript, page 767, A. A. Kellogg, page 1319, A. Henshaw, page 2553, manuscript, page 1093, Thomas N. Way, page 1259, manuscript, page 554. The accounts of this occurrence given by these different witnesses with greater or less particularity, are entirely consistent as to the main facts, while as to

unimportant particulars there is doubtless that slight variation which always characterizes accounts given by different eyewitnesses of the same occurrence, and which, as it excludes the idea of concerted falsification, is the strongest voucher for the good faith and veracity of those who testify. The essential facts which stand out clearly in this mass of testimony, so clearly that the prisoner himself, as I shall presently show, has been driven to a substantial admission of

them, are that a poor demented cripple, whose imbecile condition was notorious in the stockade and among the guards, sought to be taken from the stockade, that he might be protected from the indignation of some of his comrades who charged that he had reported tunnels to the accused, that after some parleying on the part of Chickamauga with the guard, the prisoner made his appearance when Chickamauga asked him to be taken out of the stockade, stating the reason for

his request, that the prisoner refused to take him out, and ordered the guard, who had shown an unwillingness to treat the poor cripple harshly, to shoot him if he crossed the deadline, that he did subsequently crossed the deadline, and the sentry, acting under the direct orders of the prisoner, shot him. Here, I submit, is a clear case of murder. Before going further, it is proper to remark contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses to the Chickamauga affair appear only

in the statement of the prisoner, and cannot be discovered by the closest scrutiny of the record. It is not a fact that two of the government witnesses represent the prisoner as having shot Chickamauga with his own hand. Yet the prisoner's version of the evidence would make us believe this, and the supposed conflict of testimony is urged as an illustration of what he terms the murky, foggy, indefinite, and contradictory testimony of the prosecution.

I will give the prisoner's ingenious version of the testimony, and then, as contrasting romance, with reality, I will present the evidence as given in the record. The prisoner says one witness whom for his own sake I will not name, inasmuch as his statements must have been and were recognized by everyone who heard him as undeserving the least belief, describes him, Chickamauga, as a kind of weakly man, who, when I entered the stockade one day,

wormed around me, saying that he wanted to go out in the air, whereupon Captain Wirtz wheeled again, pulled out a revolver, and shot him down. Now, the sober fact is, that this witness, in describing and characterizing the prisoner who was shot, mentions no circumstance which can warrant the supposition that he intended to testify as to the Chickamauga affair. The evidence cited by the prisoner is from page 399, manuscript page 150. I read the continuation of the same

narrative from page 400. Question. Do you know who the man was that the prisoner shot? Answer. He belonged to the 8th Missouri. They called him Red in the regiment. I knew him at Memphis. Again I quote the prisoner's statement, manuscript, page 1846. A still different version of this transaction is given in a more laconic and reckless style by another witness, page 936. I will quote it. Question. Did you ever see Captain Wirtz shoot any man? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. When? Answer. About the first day of April, I think, shortly after he took command there. Question. State the circumstances of the shooting. Answer. Captain Wirtz was coming in the south gate one day. A sick man, as I took him to be, a lame man, asked Captain Wirtz something, and Captain Wirtz turned around and shot him. Here again, no one has ever pretended that the case is identical with that of Chickamauga, the latter occurring in June and the former in April.

When the evidence of the record is treated in this manner, no wonder that it becomes, in the language of the prisoner's statement, murky, foggy, indefinite, and contradictory. It is a little remarkable, too, that after having introduced one of these witnesses as being reckless in his style of narration, and the other as undeserving the least belief, the prisoner, in a later part of his statement, dismisses them both with a concession that they were sincere in their testimony, for he says, page 4776, manuscript, page 1948, the two men who swore they saw me shoot the prisoner with my own hand were probably led to make that statement from having seen me draw my revolver in the manner i have described let me now notice the prisoner's own version of this chickamauga affair a version which he gives us as the solution of the so-called irreconcilable testimony of the prosecution the facts as the prisoner would have the court believe them and believing except as his exculpation are given in his own language in this remarkable paragraph

will the court permit me to make a statement which may serve to explain all these conflicting accounts of the death of poor chickamauga on the evening in question the sergeant or the officer of the guard came to my quarters and stated that there was a man within the dead-line jawing with the sentry and refusing to go outside and that there was a crowd of prisoners around him and a good deal of disturbance i rode my horse down to the stockade dismounted outside and went in there i found things as they had been described to me i went up to chickamauga and asked him in a rough tone of voice what the hell he was doing there he said he wanted to be killed i took my revolver in my hand and said in a menacing manner that if that was all he wanted i would accommodate him i scared him somewhat and he was taken outside by some of the prisoners i then in his presence and solely as a menace told the sentry to shoot him if he came in again i little thought that he would come back or that his comrades would permit him after their hearing the order to go once more across the forbidden line i left the stockade remounted my horse and was on my way back to my quarters when i heard the report of a musket

i hastened back and ran up to the sentry-box from which the shot had been fired there is the simple history of the case without any reserve or misrepresentation the court i am sure will recognize all the marks and evidence of truth in it it is consistent with itself and consistent with the average line of the testimony i confess that i was greatly surprised when this startling declaration was read for the first time in my hearing and in the presence of the court three days ago this explanation seems to me to admit so fully the guilt of the prisoner that if it were the mere hypothesis of counsel adopted as the last resort of a desperate defence i would decline to hold the prisoner responsible for such damning admissions which i would be bound to believe his counsel had no authority to make but here we have the solemn statement of the prisoner submitted without solicitation and after due deliberation charged with the gravest criminality in reference to an occurrence which is attested by a score of witnesses he volunteers his own explanation which is taken down from his lips revised and signed by his own hand and read before the court in his presence with no attempt on his part at disavowal when the impulse which prompted such self-criminating candour

had had time to give place to circumspect reserve under these circumstances i believe i am treating the prisoner with entire fairness when i ask the court to hold him responsible for his own words and let him be the witness of his own guilt i submit that his explanation of this occurrence so far from exculpating him exhibits his guilt scarcely less effectively than the evidence of the prosecution the main fact upon which the government insists is that the prisoner ordered the guard to shoot jigamaga if he should cross the dead-line and that in the act of crossing it or immediately afterwards This wretched imbecile was shot by the sentry in obedience to the prisoner's order. This is not denied in the statement of the prisoner, but is there fully admitted.

It is admitted that the prisoner, I quote his own language, told the sentry to shoot him if he came in again. It is admitted that this order was obeyed by the sentry, and that thus Chickamauga was killed. While conceding all this, the prisoner seeks to shield himself

under the allegation that the order was given solely as a menace. Yet he does not pretend that he gave the sentry any reason to suppose that the order was not to be obeyed. He does not pretend that the act of the sentinel in shooting was anything else than the natural obedience of a subordinate to his superior's order, which had every appearance of being imperative. When the guilty and murderous act is thus admitted, the criminal cannot seek refuge under his own

allegation of an innocent intent, particularly when he acknowledges that that intent was hidden within the recesses of his own mind, and found no shadowing forth at the time in words or acts, but was contradicted by both. The prisoner's allegation of an innocent intent cannot overcome the conclusive presumption of the law that a sane man contemplates the natural and probable consequences of his own acts. When the motive of a man arrived for crime shall be taken from his

own lips, in contradiction of the obvious tendency of his acts, courts of justice will have become obsolete. It is admitted that the order to shoot was given by the prisoner, it is admitted that that order was obeyed, and that thus Chickamauga lost his life. The obedience of the sentry and the death which resulted were the natural and probable consequences of the prisoner's self-confessed act. And, as I believe that the order for the shooting of Chickamauga

was unjustifiable and cruel, I see not how this court can do otherwise than declare that the prisoner in this melancholy affair incurred the guilt of murder. Before leaving this subject, I cannot refrain from making a passing remark on the picture of the prisoner's brutality as painted by his own hand, a picture in singular contrast with another self-portraiture embraced in the same statement. In recounting the Chickamauga affair, the prisoner says, I went up to Chickamauga

and I asked him in a rough tone of voice what the hell he was doing there. He said he wanted to be killed. I took my revolver in my hand and said, in a menacing manner, that if that was what he wanted, I would accommodate him. I scared him somewhat, and he was taken outside by some of the prisoners. How startlingly, in contrast with this, has the prisoner portrayed himself in another part of his statement. This is his language. I do trust that the enlightened court

will bear with me in my humble effort to convince it, that while commandant of the prison at Andersonville, I was not the monster that I have been depicted as being, that I did not cause or delight in the spectacle of the sufferings, woes, and deaths of the Union prisoners, that I did not contribute to their sufferings, but that, on the contrary, I did what little lay in my power, to diminish or alleviate them, and to prove that although I have been represented as little less

than a fiend, heaven left some remnant of the angel still in that poor jailer's nature. We are asked to believe that these two portraitures represent one and the same person. If it be so, then unfortunate was it for poor Chickamauga that his untutored mind did not comprehend that that fierce-seeming man, who asked him in a rough tone of voice, What the hell are you doing here? was at that very moment yearning with compassion

for his wretched condition. The poor crazy cripple little dreamed that the stern-spoken man, who, revolver in hand, said to him, If you want to be killed, I will accommodate you, was a poor jailer, in whom the remnant of the angel was struggling to exhibit itself under great difficulties, a lover of mankind in a very embarrassing position, but doing, as he says, what little lay in his power to diminish or alleviate the sufferings of those

around him. A John Howard, forsooth, whose compassionate heart prompted him, as he tells you, to take out of the stockade all the drummer-boys, in order that the little fellows might, in the enjoyment of purer air and healthful exercise, have a better chance of being restored to their yearning mothers and sisters at home. Alas, for poor Chickamauga, that he did not whisper in the ear of this rough-mannered philanthropist, that he too, crippled and insane though he was,

had a yearning mother or sister at home. Who knows, but that the suggestion might have won for Chickamauga a happier fate. But the subject is too serious for satire. I submit that in the many features of this trial, showing with what abandon the prisoner gave reign to his malicious passions, the killing of poor Chickamauga is one of the most despicable and indefensible. The insane cripple had subjected himself to the wrath of his comrades, being led by the promises

of this accused to turn traitor to them and disclose their means of escape. He had thrown himself upon the protection of his murderer. He had alienated himself from all his companions, while he had done everything to commend him in the sight of the accused. Yet when fleeing from the just indignation of his comrades, which was so great that he even dared to trust his life in the hands of the guards, with death staring him in the face from the sentinel, and from his outraged

companions, he appeals to this accused the only man who had the power to aid him in this terrible strait, the one of all others who was under an obligation so to do, and is rudely rebuffed by the man to whom he had rendered a service, brutally repulsed with a violence of manner and language which appears as vividly in the prisoner's own version of the transaction as in that given by the witnesses for the prosecution, and is told to go back to this mob, which is crying for his blood,

or that if he did not do this, but remained within the deadline, the sentry would shoot him. It was death to Chickamauga, whichever way he went, and this accused must have known it, and must have intended it, else he would have let him out of that horrible place with what conscience then can he ask you to believe him when he tells you he did not intend the death of chickamauga this court i submit in view of the evidence must hold the prisoner responsible for the death of that miserable creature having presented one of these cases at some length one which i think will admit of no doubt i will pass hastily over the evidence bearing upon similar cases giving a brief analysis and reference to the testimony leaving the court to arrive at its own conclusions william bull page twenty two seventy six manuscript page nine seventy seven testifies that on the third of june at the north gate he saw a man shot that the prisoner came in at the head of a detachment put three guards on the stoop and ordered them to fire at the crowd to make them fall back

that one of the guards fired and that the ball struck the man in the stomach who was about fifteen feet distant from the witness w w crandall patrick bradley page states that on one occasion, he thinks it was in June 1864, when the men were crowding around the south gate, the prisoner was there and thought they crowded too much. He ordered the sentry on the outside of the gate to fire, and repeated the order three or four distinct times. The sentry fired and killed a man who was about five feet from the deadline. Jacob D. Brown,

page 465 manuscript 186 testifies that on the 27th of july he saw the prisoner in the sentry box near the brook some of the prisoners were there getting water and men would accidentally reach under the deadline the prisoner told the sentry if any man reached through the deadline to get water to shoot him down he had barely said the words when a prisoner reached through and the sentry fired, the ball taking effect in the head, killing him instantly. Witness was close to him.

Joseph Adler, page 1211, manuscript, page 532, testifies that sometime in July the prisoner was standing in the sentry box when two or three men were at the brook after water. Some got their hands beyond the deadline, and the prisoner asked the sentry why he did not shoot, as it was no matter whether the man's whole body was over the dead line, or only a part of it, that if he did not shoot, he would have him punished. The sentry thereupon shot the man in the right breast.

He fell into the creek. Bernard Corrigan, page 1346, manuscript, page 596, testifies that a few days after the raiders were hung, which was on the 11th of July, a man was shot at the south gate. we were going he says for medicine the man had two tin cups in his hands words told the guard if he did not keep the men back he would take him off and punish him he repeated it saying he had a gun words turned his back and started off and the guard fired right among the crowd and shot this man joseph r acoff page ten ninety three manuscript page four seventy three states that in july they were carrying sick men to the gate there was a great crowd there the prisoner told the sentry if the men did not keep back to blow them through the sentinel had his musket against a man's stomach and drew back and fired and killed a man from pennsylvania jacob d brown page 467 manuscript page 186

testifies that about the middle of august the prisoner ordered the sentinel to shoot men who were getting water from the brook the men being much crowded the sentry fired and a man was shot in the breast the wound being fatal prescott tracy page fourteen seventeen manuscript page six twenty seven states that in the month of august eighteen sixty four he heard the prisoner order the shooting of a man who had just come in and did not know the rules and regulations that he went to get a drink and slipped and fell with his head about six inches over the dead line that the prisoner at the bar called to the sentry god damn your soul why don't you shoot that yankee son of a bitch the guard fired the ball striking the man in the head and coming out at the back of his neck he died in the creek see also evidence of charles e smith page twenty five thirty eight manuscript page ten eighty five End of part 9