It is, therefore, ordered by the Court that the prosecutions aforesaid be dismissed."

"Strange to say an order was entered upon the first of February reading 'that in as much as the indictments had been dismissed, he and his bondsmen were forever released.'

"The motion, on appeal in the Supreme Court, of course, was never called, and is now filed among the archives."

Thus ended this great historical case. If Davis and his illustrious patriots with all the brave defenders of the "Lost Cause" had been guilty of treason, the proof would have been forthcoming; and Davis and all the principal leaders would have been hung; and justly so. But the proof was not forthcoming.

THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.

On this subject the South has been charged with most atrocious cruelty. This false accusation has been so completely refuted by Benjamin H. Hill, of Georgia, that we give his speech in full (omitting interruptions) as a complete refutation of the charges.

On the 10th day of January, 1876, James G. Blaine in the House of Representatives, a prospective candidate for the presidency of the United States, delivered a well-prepared address in the House in which he charged that "Mr. Davis was fully, deliberately guilty and wantonly cognizant of, and responsible for the organized crime and murder of Andersonville." He also said, "I now assert deliberately before God, as my Judge, knowing the full measure and import of my words, that the cruelties of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the screws and tortures of the Spanish Inquisition did not approach in cruelty the atrocity of Andersonville." One has said, "No speech ever delivered in Congress created It is logic on fire a profounder impression than this one. with truth and patriotisın, literally consuming falsehood and sectional hatred. If Mr. Hill had never again opened his mouth in Congress, this speech would have made him famous and forever embalmed him in the grateful hearts of his countrymen. Its conclusion furnishes as fine declamation as can be found in the English language and is a favorite selection for college declamation."

The speech follows:

"Mr. Speaker, the House will bear witness we have not sought this discussion. Nothing could have been farther from the desires and purposes of those who with me represent immediately the section of country which on yesterday was put upon trial, than to reopen the discussion of the events of our unhappy past. We had well hoped that the country had suffered long enough from feuds, from strife, from inflamed passions, and we came here, sir, with a patriotic purpose to remember nothing but the

country and the whole country, and, turning our backs upon all the horrors of the past, to look with all earnestness to find glories for the future.

"The gentleman, who is the acknowledged leader of the Republican party on this floor, who is the aspiring leader of the Republican party of this country, representing most manifestly the wishes of many of his associates-not all has willed otherwise. They seem determined that the wounds which were healing shall be reopened, that the passions which were hushing shall be re-inflamed. Sir, I wish this House to understand that we do not reciprocate either the purpose or the manifest desire of the gentleman on the other side, and while we feel it our imperative duty to vindicate the truth of history as regards the section which we represent, feeling that it is a portion of this common country, we do not intend to say anything calculated to aid the gentlemen in their work of crimination and recrimination, and of keeping up the war by politicians after brave men have said war shall end. The gentleman from Maine on yesterday presented to the country two questions which he manifestly intends to be the fundamental principles of the Republican party, or at least of those who follow him in that party. The first is what he is pleased to term the magnanimity and grace of the Republican party; and the second is the brutality of those whom he is pleased to term 'the rebels.' Upon the first question I do not propose to weary the House today. If, with the history of the past fifteen years, fresh in the memory of the people, the country is prepared to talk about the grace and magnanimity of the Republican party, argument would be wasted. If master enslaved, intelligence disfranchised, society disorganized, industry paralized, States subverted, Legislatures dispersed by the bayonet, the people can accord to that party the verdict of grace and magnanimity-may God save the future of our country from grace and magnanimity. "I advance directly to that portion of the gentleman's argument which relates to the question before the House. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) has presented to this House, and he asks it to be adopted, a bill on the subject of amnesty, which is precisely the same as the bill passed in this House by the gentleman's own party, as I understand it, at the last session of Congress. The gentleman from Maine has moved

a reconsideration of the vote by which it was rejected, avowing his purpose to be to offer an amendment. The main purpose of that amendment is to except from the operation of the bill one of the citizens of this country, Mr. Jefferson Davis.

"He alleges two distinct reasons why he asks the House to make that exception. I will state those reasons in the gentleman's cwn language. First, he says Mr. Davis was the authorknowingly, deliberately, guiltily, and willfully-of the gigantic murder and crime at Andersonville.' That is a grave indictment. He then characterizes, in his second position, what he calls the horrors of Andersonville. And he says of them:

"And I here before God, measuring my words, knowing their full extent and import, declare that neither the deeds of the Duke of Alva, nor the massacre of St. Bartholomew, nor the thumbscrews and engines of torture of the Spanish Inquisition, begin to compare in atrocity with the hideous crimes of Andersonville.'

"Sir, he stands before this country with his very fame in peril if he, having made such charges, shall not sustain them. Now I take up the propositions of the gentleman in their order. I hope no gentleman imagines that I am here to pass any eulogy upon Mr. Davis. The record upon which his fame must rest has been made up, and he and his friends have transmitted that record to the only judge who will give him an impartial judgment-an honest unimpassioned posterity. In the meantime no eulogy from me can help him, no censure from the gentleman can damage him, and no act or resolution of this House can affect him. But the charge is that he is a murderer, and a delib erate, willful, guilty, scheming murderer of thousands of our fellow citizens.' Why, sir, knowing the character of the honorable gentleman from Maine, his high reputation, when I heard the charge fall from his lips I thought surely the gentleman had made a recent discovery, and I listened for the evidence to justify that charge. He produced it; and what is it? To my utter amazement, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelley) has well stated, it is nothing on earth but a report of a committee of this Congress, made when passions were at their height, and it was known to the gentleman and to the whole country eight years ago.

"Now, I say first in relation to that testimony, that it is exclusively ex parte. It was taken when the gentleman, who is now put upon trial by it before the country, was imprisoned and in chains, without a hearing and without an opportunity to be heard. It was taken by enemies. It was taken in the midst of fury and rage. If there is anything in Anglo-Saxon law which ought to be considered sacred, it is the high privilege of an Englishman not to be condemned until he shall be confronted with the witnesses against him. But that is not all. The testimony produced by the gentleman is not only ex parte, not only exclusively the production of enemies, or at least taken by them. and in the midst of passion, but the testimony is mutilated.. Why, sir, one of the main witnesses is Dr. Joseph Jones, a very excellent gentleman, who was called upon to give his testimony in what is called the Wirz trial, and which is produced before the House and attention called to it by the gentleman. The object of the gentleman was to prove that Mr. Davis knew of these atrocities at Andersonville, and he calls the attention of the House to the report of this committee and thanks God that it has been taken in time to be put where it can neither be contradicted nor gainsaid as a perpetual guide to posterity to find out the authors of these crimes.

"One of the most striking and remarkable pieces of evidence is this whole report made by Dr. Jones, a surgeon of fine character, and sent to Andersonville by the Confederate authorities to investigate the condition of that prison. That gentleman made his report, and it is brought into this House. What is it? The first point is as to the knowledge of this report going to any of the authorities at Richmond. Here is what Dr. Jones says:

"I have just completed the report, which I placed in the hands of the Judge Advocate under orders from the government, when the Confederacy went to pieces. That report never was delivered to the Surgeon-General, and I was unaware that any one knew of its existence until I received orders from the United States Government to bring it to this Court in testimony.' "Now, he was ordered by the United States Government, the first time this report ever saw the light, to bring it and deliver it to the judge-advocate on the trial of Wirz. In accordance