would have ended in the exile or death of those who advocated a continuance of the war. He then referred to Forney, who was a well known correspondent of the Philadelphia Press, and said he had no right to speak for those who were not connected with the administration. That some of our public men, rather than bring back some of the seceded states would submit to a permanent separation of the Union. He stated that France, a nation that had always shown herself to be a friend of our government, had proposed to act as intermediator; but that her proposition, which, if accepted, might have brought about an honorable peace, was insolently rejected.

Mr, Vallandigham here corrected the witness. The word he used was "instantly," not "insolently."

Witness...I understood the word he used to have been "insolently." That the people had been deceived-that 20,000 lives had been lost at the battle of Fredericksburg, which might have been saved. In speaking of the ob- | jects of the war, he said it was a war for the liberation of the blacks, and the enslavement of the whites. We had been told it would be terminated in three monthsthen in nine months-and again in a year. That the war was still in progress, and that there was no prospect of its being ended. That Richmond was theirs; that Charleston and Vicksburg were theirs; that the Mississippi was not opened, and would not be so long as there was cotton on its banks to be stolen, or so long as there were any officers to enrich. That a southern paper had denounced him and Cox and the peace Democrats as having done more to prevent the establishing of the Southern Confederacy than 10,000 soldiers could do. That they proposed to operate through the masses of the people in both sections who were in favor of the Union. That it was the purpose or design of the Administration to suppress or prevent such meetings as the one he was addressing. [This very trial proved the truth of this.] That military marshals were about to be appointed in every district, who would act for the purpose of restricting the liberties of the people; [did not this prove true?] but that he was a freemau. That he did not ask David Tod, or Abraham Lincoln, or Ambrose E. Burnside for his right to speak as he had done, and was doing. That his authority for so doing was higher than General Order No. 38-it was General Order No. 1-the Constitution. That General Order No. 38 was a base usurpation of arbitrary power-[a greater truth no man ever uttered]-that he had the most supreme contempt for such power. He despised it and spit upon it. He trampled it under his feet. That only a few days before a man had been dragged from his home in Butler county by an outrageous usurpation of power and tried for an offence not known to our laws by a self-constituted court martial; tried without a jury, which is guaranteed to every one...that he had been fined and imprisoned. That two men were brought over from Kentucky and tried, contrary to express laws for the trial of treason, and were now under sentence of death. That an order had just been issued in Indiana denying to persons the right to canvass or discuss military policy, and that if it was submitted to would be followed up by a similar order in Ohio. That he was resolved never to submit to an order of a military dictator, prohibiting the free discussion of either civil or military authority. The sooner that the people inform the minions of this usurped power that they would not submit to such restrictions upon their liberties, and that they would not cringe and cower before such authority, the better. Let them not be deluded by the

Witness...The speaker closed by warning the people not. to be deceived. That an attempt would shortly be made to enforce the conscription law, and to remember that the war was not for the preservation of the Union, but that it was a wicked abolition war, and that if those in authority were allowed to accomplish their purposes, the people would be deprived of their liberties and a monarchy established; but, as for him, he was resolved that he would never be a priest, to minister at the altar on which his country was being sacrificed. [Is this implied treason?]

Question by J. A... What other flags or emblems were used in decorating the stage!

A... There were banners made of frame-work, and covered with canvass, which were decorated with butternuts, and bore inscriptions. One banner, which was carried at the head of a delegation which came in from a town in the country, bore the inscription, "The copperheads are coming."

Mr. Vallandigham... The South never carried copper cents.

[What greatness' for an administration to punish a man for speaking at a meeting where butternuts were worn!] Judge Advocate...But butternuts are a southern emblem.

Mr. Vallandigham shook his head, and said they were not.

Q. by J. A....Did you see any persons have emblems on their persons?

A... Yes, I saw hundreds of persons wearing butternut and copperhead badges.

Mr. Vallandigham...The copper badges were simply the head cut out of the common cent coins with pins attached.

Mr. Vallandigham...Did you notice what inscription those copperhead badges bore?

A...No, I did not lock at them.

Mr. Vallandigham...The inscription on them was "Liberty?"

Q. by J. A...Did you hear any cheers in the crowd for Jeff. Davis?

Mr. Vallandigham...That is not in the specification. A...I did not hear cheers for Jeff. Davis, but I heard a shout in the crowd that Jeff. Davis was a gentleman, and that was more than the President was. [Did Mr. V. commit treason by proxy?]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VALLANDIGHAM.

promise propositions, and condemn their rejection? Q.-Did not I refer in my speech to the Crittenden com

As the witness was about answering the Judge Advocate objected to the question on the ground that it was bringing in a matter foreign to the charge and specification. The court allowed the question to be answered.

A.-When endeavoring to show that the party in power had not the restoration of the Union in view in conducting the war, and that that was not their object, he stated a number of means by which that could have been accomplished, and, from the fact that none had been adopted, he considered it proof that that the restoration of the Union was not the object for which the war was being waged. Q.--Did I not quote Judge Douglas' declaration that the rejection

Mr. Vallandigham.-I desire to prove that in my speech I stated that Mr. Douglas had said that the responsibility for the rejection of the Crittenden propositions was with the republican party.

The Judge Advocate stated that his objection was that

sions with which the court had nothing to do.

The room was cleared for deliberation, aud the doors closed.

After an interval of fifteen minutes the doors were

again opened, and then the Judge Advocate annouced, that the question would not be admitted.

Judge Advocate objected to this part of the testimony as irrelevant.

Mr. Vallandigham desired the court to permit the witness to go on with this testimony.

Q...When speaking in connection with Forney's Press, did I not say that if other democrats in Washington and myself had not refused all idea and suggestions of some prominent men of the party in power, to make peace on terms of disunion, that I believed the war would have been ended in February?

A...When speaking of the propositions before referred to, and that this war was not being carried on for the restoration of the Union, he stated that if the Democrats in Washington had united in influence for the permanent separation of the Union, it would have been accomplished in February.

Q... Did I not refer expressly to myself in that connection, and say that I had refused and always would refuse,

to agree to a separation of the states, in other words, to peace on terms of disunion?

A... Well, that idea is not exactly as it was expressed.He stated something to that effect. That he wished to have a voice in the manner in which the Union was to be reconstructed, and that our southern brethren should also have a voice in the matter.

Q...Referring to the Richmond Enquirer article, did I not say that it, Jeff. Davis', organ, had called Dictator Lincoln to lock up Mr. Cox, Senator Richardson and myself in one of his military prisons, because of our doing so much against southern recognition and independence? A... That is substantially what he said.

Q...Referring to General Order No. 38, did I not say that in so far as it undertook to subject citizens not in the land or naval forces of the United States, or militia of the United States in actual service, to trial by court martial or military commission, I believed to be unconstitutional and a usurpation of arbitrary power?

A...Yes, except in the words "in so far."

Q...Referring to two citizens of Kentucky tried by military court in Cincinnati, did I not say that if what they were charged with was actual treason, punishable by death, and that if guilty the penalty by state law which was hanging, that they ought to be hung, after being tried by a judicial court and a jury, instead of which they had been tried by a military court, and, as I understood, sentenced to a fine and imprisonment-one of them $300 fine? A...I don't think he put those "if's" in. I think he said they were improperly tried, and by a usurpation of power. Mr. Vallandigham... Strike out the "if's" then. Witness...That was substantially what he said.

Q....Did I not say, in that connection, that the rebel officer who was tried as a spy by the military court at Cincinnati, was legally and properly tried, according to the rules and articles; tried and convicted-that that was a clear case, where the court had jurisdiction?

A...It is my recollection that he denounced the court as an unlawful tribunal, and did not make the distinction. Q. by Judge Advocate...Did he refer to the case of Campbell, the rebel spy, and make any distinction?

A....No. He denounced the court first, and then gave the instances, which I have already related in my direct testimony.

Q. by Vallandigham...Do you not remember my speaking of the Campbell case, and saying that he was properly tried?

A...He may, but I do not recollect it. He probably did refer to the Campbell case.

Q...May I not have made the distinction and you not have heard it?

The Judge Advocate said he would admit that the accused did draw the distinction between the cases, and that he admitted the right of the court to try the spy. In other words, that he condemned the trial of the Butler county man, and approved the case of the spy who was tried and convicted.

Q....Did I not distinctly, in the conclusion of the speech, enjoin upon the people to stand by the Union at all events and that, if war failed, not to give up the Union, but to try by peacable means, by compromise, to restore it as our fathers made it, and that, though others might consent, or be forced to consent, I would not myself be one of those who would take any part in agreeing to a dissolution of the Union?

A... Yes. He said that he and the peace men were the only ones who wished the restoration of the Union.

Q...Did not one of the banners you refer to as decorated with butternuts bear the inscription, "The Constitution as it is and the Union as it was"?

A...The banners were numerous. One of them, I believe, did bear that inscription.

Q...Do you mean to be understood to say that I heard the reference to Jeff. Davis in the crowd or gave any assent to it whatever?

A...I cannot say that he did. Did not see or hear him give any assent to it. There were many other remarks of that character uttered.

Q...What was the size of the crowd assembled there? A...I did not know the proper estimate but the crowd was very large.

The Court then adjourned to Thursday morning at 10 o'clock.

SECOND DAY.

The court met at 10 o'clock, A. M. Present as before. Yesterday's proceedings and testimony were read and approved, and were signed by the President.

Capt. Hill was again called to the stand, and his cross examination was resumed by Mr. Vallandigham.

Q...In speaking of the character of the war, did I not expressly say as Mr. Lincoln in his proclamation, July 1st, 1862, said, "This unnecessary and injurious civil war?”

Judge Advocate... So, Mr. Vallandigham, was that used in your speech as a quotation from the President's proclamation?

Mr. Vallardigham... Yes, it was.

Witness...I do not recollect that he did. The language he made use of I understood to be his own.

Mr. Vallandigham... Of course I could not put the quotation marks in my speech.

So that no speaker must repeat Mr. Lincoln's jokes or aphorisms, unless he puts in the quotation marks.]

Q... Again, in speaking of the character of the war, did I not expressly give as proof the President's proclamation of September 22, 1862, and January 1, 1863, declaring the emancipation of the slaves in the southern seceded states, as proof that the war was being waged for that purpose? The witness was about to answer, when the Judge Advocate checked him. He said it was bringing matters which were foreign to the charge and specification, and that the court was not called upon to pass upon the merits of the President's proclamation. He then desired that the court should be closed for deliberation.

Mr. Vallandigham...I desire to show this fact, in explanation of the purpose and object of my declaration as to the present character of the war, and as my authority for the statement, for I assume that the President is not disloyal.

The Judge Advocate insisted that the question required the court to pass judgment upon the merits of the President's proclamation, and not whether he (Mr. V.) was expressing his own sentiments or those of the President. The Judge Advocate said the question would not be admitted.

Q...Did you continue at the same place during the delivery of the whole speech? A...I did.

Q... Were your notes taken at the time or reduced to writing afterward?

A...They were taken at the time, and as they fell from the speaker's lips.

Q... Were you not in citizen's clothes; and how came you to be at Mount Vernon that day? Did you go to Mount Vernon for the purpose of taking notes and reporting the speech?

Judge Advocate...I object to this question, on the ground of its immateriality.

Mr. Vallandigham insisted on the question, on the ground that it explained the temper and spirit of the witness, and his prejudices, and as showing that the notes were taken with reference to the arrest and prosecution before this Commission, he being a Captain in the service, and his regiment at Cincinnati.

The question was objected to by the Judge Advocate, and the court was cleaned for deliberation.

On opening the doors again, the Judge Advocate announced that the question would be allowed.

A...I was in citizen's clothes, and I went up for the purpose of listening to any speech that might be delivered by him. [A self-convicted spy.] I had no order to take notes or report.

Q....Did you go provided with pencil and paper?

The Judge Advocate objected to the question. Of course the witness had pencil and paper.

Q...Did you take notes of any other speech?

A....I commenced taking notes of Mr. Cox's speech, but considered it harmless, and stopped. I took no notes of any other speech.

Q...Were you not sent expressly to listen to my speech? A....I was not any more than any other speech. Q...By whom were you sent or requested to go? A....By Capt. Andrew C. Kemper, Assistant Adjutant General of the military commandant of the city. Q....From whom did you obtain leave of absence? Judge Advocate... He did not need any leave of absence; the order was enough.

Mr. Vallandigham...Then strike out the words "or requested" from the answer for it leaves it ambiguous. Q...Did you make report to Capt. Kemper on your return?

The Judge Advocate objected to the question, but the court allowed it.

A... On my return I did not report to Kemper.
Q...To whom did you report?

A...To Col. Eastman himself, and he sent me to headquarters Department of the Ohio.

The Judge Advocate called

Capt. John A, Means, 115th O. V. I., who was sworn. He was asked by the Judge Advocate if he was at the Mount Vernon meeting, and whether he heard Mr. Vallandigham speak, and, if so, what he said of the war, &c. Witness...I was present at the meeting, and heard Mr. Vallandigham address the people. I was in two or three positions most of the time, and about five or ten feet from the stand. I heard the whole speech.

By the Judge Advocate...State what remarks you heard him make, and give us, as near as you can, his language. Witness...He stated that the war was not carried on for the restoration of the Union, and that it might have been stopped some time ago, and the Union restored, if the plans which had been submitted had been accepted.

Mr. Vallandigham objected to this testimony, on the ground that he had applied for a subpoena to compel the attendance of Fernando Wood, who would produce the written evidence of what he (Mr. V.) had asserted about the return of Southern Senators to their seats in Congress.

Judge Advocate...I will strike from the specification that part which refers to the propositions by which the Southern States could be won back, &c.

To the Witness... You will omit that part of your testimony.

Witness continued. "If the plans he had proposed himself had been adopted, peace would have been restored, the Union saved by a reconstruction, the North won back, and the South guaranteed her rights. That Richmond, Charleston, and Vicksburg had not been taken, and the Mississippi was not opened, and could not be as long as there was cotton on the banks to be stolen or officers enriched. He said that after the rebuke which the administration received at the last fall election, no more volunteers could be had, and the Administration had to resort to the French conscription law. But he would not counsel resistance to military or civil law. That was not needed. The people were not deserving to be free men who would submit to such encroachments on their liberties.

Mr. Vallandigham... What was I referring to, when I made the remarks you say I did?

Witness... He was speaking of the conscription act........ He said he believed that the Administration was attempting to erect a despotism, and in less than one month. Mr. Lincoln had plunged the country in this cruel, bloody, and unnecessary war. He stated that General Order No. 38 was a usurpation of power that he despised...he spit upon it and trampled it under his feet. That he for one would not regard it. He styled the officers of the administration and officers of the army as Lincoln minions.... He said he did not ask Lincoln or Burnside whether he might speak; that he was a free man and spoke as he pleased. He stated the military orders and proclamations were intended to intimidate the people and prevent them from meeting as they had done that day. He claimed the right to discuss and criticise the actions of civil and military authorities.

Q...Did he advise the people to take any steps to obtain their rights?

A... At the close of his speech be. advised the people to come up together, and at the ballot-box to hurl the tyrant from his throne. In one part of his speech he styled the President as King Lincoln.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VALLANDIGHAM.

Q...Did you take any notes at all during delivery of the speech, or are you testifying solely from memory?

A...I took no minutes during the delivery of the speech. After Pendleton commenced speaking, I went and wrote out what I heard. It was perhaps an hour and a half after I heard the speech.

Q...About what was the length of the speech?
A...I think about an hour and a half.

Q...You made no short-hand report of it I suppose. Did you ever report in short hand?

Judge Advocate... The witness has already said he made no report of the speech.

Mr. Vallandigham wanted to know if he was accustomed to reporting speeches.

The Judge Advocate objected to the question. Q...You speak of my saying the North might be won back-was it not the South might be won back? Mr.

Q... ...You say that I said that I would not counsel resistance to military or civil law. Did not I expressly counsel the people to obey the constitution and the laws and to pay proper respect to men in authority, but to maintain their political rights through the ballot-box, and to redress personal wrongs through the judicial tribunals of the country and in that way to rebuke and put down administrations and all usurpations of power,

A...Not in that connection. He said, at the last of his speech, to come up to the ballot-box and hurl the tyrant from power.

Q...Do you recollect the whole connection in which the sentence was used?

A...I did not understand him to advise submission at all times.

Q...Do you recollect the sum and substance of what I said?

A...I remember part of it, but I cannot remember the language or substance so as to answer the question.

Q...Did I not say that my authority to speak to the people in public assemblages on all public questions was not derived from General Order No.. 38, but from General Order No. 1-the Constitution of the United States, George Washington commanding?

A...I understood him to say that his authority to speak to the people was higher than General Order No. 38, by that military despot, Burnside. It was Order No. 1, signed Washington. I did not hear him say I did not hear him say "Constitution."

Q... Were not the names of Tod, Lincoln and Burnside used in the same connection, and that I did not ask their consent to speak?

A... At another time he did use these words.

Q... Were not the remarks you say I made about despising, spitting and trampling under foot, expressly applied in reference to arbitrary power generally, and did I not in that connection refer to General Order No. 9 of Indiana, signed by General Hascall, denying the right to criticise the war policy of the Administration?

A...The remarks in regard to despising and spitting upon were in direct reference to Order No. 38. Some time afterwards, in speaking of the tyranny of the administration, he did refer to Order No. 9. and of the right to criticise the acts ofthe Administration, and said that, if submitted to, it would be followed by civil war in Ohio. Q...Did I approve or condemn the order?

Judge Advocate... The question, I think, has been already answered.

Q...Will you undertake to give any connected or methodical statement of my speech of over one hour and a half long?

A...I simply remember parts of it. I do not pretend to give the speech just as he spoke it.

Q... Were you not present in citizen's clothes, and how came you at Mount Vernon that day, by whose order, and were you sent for the purpose of listening to and reporting the speech?

A...I was there in citizen's clothes by order of Colonel Eastman. I was sent to listen to the speech and to give my careful attention and get his language as near as I could. Q...Did you make such a report?

A...I did; to Col. Eastman.

THE DEFENCE.

On the re-assembling of the court Mr. Vallandigham. called Hon. S. S. Cox, who was sworn. He was examined by Mr. Vallandıgham.

Q... Were you present at a public political meeting of citizens of Ohio, at Mount Vernon, on Friday, May 1st, 1863, and if so, in what capacity?

A...I was present as one of the speakers. Q...Did you hear the speech of Mr. Vallandigham on that day made to the assemblage?

A...I did.

Q...State where your position was during its delivery; what your opportunities for hearing were; whether you heard it all; and whether and why your attention was particularly directed to it?

A...Before the speaking began I was on the stand, a few feet from Mr. Vallandigham, and was most of the time standing near him, so that I could not fail to hear all that he said. I do not think my attention was distracted. unless for a few minutes during the whole speech. I had not heard Mr. Vallandigham speak since the adjournment of Congress, and as I came in from a different direction from the West, I did not know that he w to be there. I took an especial interest in listening to his speech throughout. Having to follow him, I naturally noted the topics which he discussed. I believe that answers the question. Q...Did you hear any allusions to Gen. Burnside, by name or description, and if so, what were they?

A...The only allusion that he made to the General was, I think, near the beginning of his speech, in which he said he was not there by the favor of David Tod, or Abraham Lincoln, or Ambrose E. Burnside.

Q... Were any epithets applied to him during the speech? A...No, sir. If there had been, I should have noticed them, because Gen. Burnside was an old friend of mine. I should have remembered any odious epithets applied to him.

Q...Did you hear the reference to General Order No. 38, and, if so, what was it?

A...The only reference made in that speech to that Order was something to this effect: that he did not recognize (I do not know that I can quote his language) Order No. 38 as superior to General Order No. 1, of the Constitution, from George Washington, commanding. It was something to that effect. I thought at the time that it was a handsome point. I remembered that, because Mr. Vallandigham used the same expression in the debate in Congress on the conscription bill, or in some debate, somewhere else, when I heard him speak.

Q....Were any violent epithets, such as spitting upon, trampling under foot, or the like, used at any time in the speech, in reference to that Order No. 38; and if any criticism was made upon it, what was that criticism?

A....I cannot recall any denunciatory epithets applied to that order, I did not hear them, and if I had I should have remembered them. The criticism upon the order was made as I have stated before.

Q....In what connection did I use the strong language? A....Mr. Vallandigham discussed the order very briefly, in order to get away on the four o'clock train, and occupied most of his time in discussing other propositions.... It was in connection with remarks about closing the war by separation of the Union. He charged that the men in power had the power to make peace by separation. He exhausted some time in reading proofs of this; one was from Montgomery Blair and another from Forney's Press. He also said there were private proofs which time would disclose. He said they pursued this thing until they found that the Democrats were unwilling to make any peace except on the basis of the restoration of the whole Union.

Q...Do you remember to what, if at all, in connection with future usurpations of power he applied his strongest language?

A...I cannot say as to the strongest language, for he always spoke pretty strongly. He denounced in strong language any usurpations of power to stop public discussions and the suffrage. He appealed to the people to protect their rights, as the remedy for every grievance. Twice in his speech he counseled and warned against violence or revolution. By the peaceful means of the ballot-box, all that was wrong of a public nature might be remedied and that the courts would remedy all grievances of a private nature. I cannot quote the language, but that is the substance.

During his speech he referred to those in power having rightful authority, and that they should be obeyed. He

Q...What was the sole remedy that I urged upon the people?

A...The sole remedy was, as I have stated, in the courts and in the ballot-box. I remember this distinctly, because I had been pursuing the same line of remark at Chicago and Fort Wayne and other places where I had been speaking, and for the purpose of repressing any tendency toward violence among our democratic people.

Q... Was anything said by me on that occasion in denunciation of the conscription bill or looking in any way to resistance to it?

A...My best recollection is that Mr. Vallandigham did not say a word about it.

Mr. Vallandigham...Not one word.

Q...Did I refer to the French conscription law, and if not, by whom was reference made to it?

A...He did not. I did in this connection.

The Judge Advocate objected to what Mr. Cox had said as not being competent evidence.

Mr. Cox desired to say to the Court, in explanation of what he said about the Conscription law, that he had just before the meeting been talking with Judge Bartley about the Conscription law having been copied from the French law, and I merely referred to that in my speech.

Q...Do you remember my quoting from President Lincoln's proclamation of July 1st, 1862, the words "unnecessary and injurious war."

A...I do not. He may have done so, but I did not hear it.

Q...Did you hear similar language used by me?
A...I cannot recollect it.

Q...Do you remember my comments on the change of the policy of the war some year or so after its commencement, and what reference was made by me in that connection?

A...He did refer to the change in the policy of the war, and I think devoted some time to show that it war carried on for the abolition of slavery, and not for the restoration of the Union.

Q...What did he claim to have been its original purpose, and did he refer to any measure or proclamation of the President in that connection?

A...He referred in that defense to the Crittenden proposition, declaring the war was for the restoration of the Union, and not to break up the States.

Q...Did I counsel any other mode in that speech, of resisting usurpations of arbitrary power, except by free discussion and the ballot-box?

A...He did not.

Mr. Vallandigham...As I understand that portion of the specification which relates to the proposition from Richmond has been stricken out, I will ask no questions about it.

Q...Were any denunciations of the officers of the army indulged in by me, or any offensive epithets applied to them?

A... Well, occasionally, Mr. Vallandigham used the word "The President and his minions," but I did not think he used it in any other than the general acceptation of that term. He did not use it in connection with the army.

Mr. Vallandigham...I did not use it in connection with the officers of the army.

Mr. Cox...It was in connection with arbitrary arrests perhaps, that he used it.

Q... Was it not in connection with army contractors and speculators?

The Judge Advocate objected to the question and said the witness had distinctly stated that he did not think Mr V. had applied it to the officers of the army.

Q...Do I understand you to say that the denunciations to which you refer, were chiefly in reference to arbitrary arrests?

A...My recollection is that that was the connection in which it was used. He used strong epithets towards spies and informers, and did not seem to like them very much. Mr. Vallandigham... As the court has admitted that I did make a distinction between the Butler county case and the Kentucky spy, I will not refer to it now.

Q...Do you remember the connection in which words to this effect were used at the close of the speech: "In regard to the possibility of a dissolution of the Union," and of his own determination in regard to such a contingency, and his "declining to act as a priest?"

A...I cannot give the exact words, but I remember the metaphor, "that he would not be a priest to minister at the

altar of disunion." It was as he wound up his speech. He was speaking about disunion and his attachment to the Union.

Q... What counsel did I give the people on the subject of the Union at the close of my speech?.

A...He invoked them under no circumstances to surrender the Union. I think he said something about leaving it to our posterity.

Q...Do you remember my rebuke of arbitrary court martials, and was it in connection with the Butler county case? A... Yes; I so understood it.

Q... What was the general character of my remarks on that subject?

A...He denounced the applause of Jeff. Davis by that party, and said there was a mode by which this man could be tried.

Mr. Vallandigham asked whether the rebuke had not reference to, and was spoken in connection with the ButHe desired a distinct answer to this. ler county case.

Mr. Cox...He was speaking of the Butler county case, and he pointed out a mode by which such a man could be tried.

Q... Was anything said in my speech in reference to the war, except in condemnation of what I claimed to be the policy upon which it was now being waged, and as a policy which I insisted could not restore the Union, but must end finally in disunion?

A...I can only give my understanding. I do not know what inference other people might draw from it. I understood his condemnation of the war to be launched at the perversion of its original purpose.

Mr. Vallandigham...I do not remember anything further just now. I have some other witnesses whom I desire to examine on this point, who are not yet here.

Judge Advocate...I have no questions to put to the witness.

To Mr. Vallandigham... Has not this witness sufficiently developed the purpose and spirit of your speech?

Mr. Vallandigham...I have called but one witness, and I understand the court has several more to corroberate what their first witness has testified.

Judge Advocate...The court will not be influenced by the number of witnesses. The number has nothing to do with the case.

Mr. Vallandigham...I did not counsel any resistance in my speeeh, and there were three witnesses on the stand, one of whom was the presiding officer and one a reporter, who is accustomed to reporting speeches, though he did not report on that occasion, whom I have telegraphed for and expect here at 4 p. m.

The Judge Advocate suggested that Mr. Pendleton, who was now present, was at the meeting at Mount Vernon, and that he might be called to the stand.

Mr. Vallandigham... Mr. Pendleton has been engaged in this case, and I would prefer not to call him, as I have other witnesses. I also desire to show that the criticisms in my speech were not in reference to General Order No. 38.

Judge Advocate... The witness has just said so. Mr. Vallandigham...If the court will admit that, then I will not call other witnesses.

Judge Advocate...I will admit that the language might not have been used, especially toward General Order No. 38, but it had been proved that such language was used in the Mount Vernon speeches, in reference to military orders.

Mr. Vallandigham...I want to prove that it was not used in relation to General Order No. 38.

Judge Advocate...I will admit that the language was. not used in regard to General Order No. 38, but generally to military orders.

Mr. Vallandigham said he desired time to prepare a defence covering this testimony, and would, according to the rules governing court martials, submit it in writing.

The Judge Advocate said he might cover 100 or 200 pages of foolscap in reviewing the case, but this would take time. He (the Judge Advocate) did not propose to say anything on the evidence, but would leave it with the Court. Mr. Vallandigham might say what he desired in defence verbally, and it could be reported in short hand, and thus save time.

Mr. Vallandigham preferred to have the record correct, as it would have to go before another tribunal.

The Court then took a recess to half past four o'clock.
The Court reconvened at five o'clock, P. M.

The Judge Advocate stated that the witnesses for the #ccused, who were expected, namely, Lickey Harper, J. F. F. Irwin and Frank H. Hurd, had not arrived, and that

he had agreed with the accused to admit, as it would avoid a continuance, that if they were present and under oath, they would testify substantially the same as Mr. Cox had done.

Thereupon Mr. Vallandigham said he had no more testimony to offer, and the case closed

The Judge Advocate now announced that the testimony was all in.

At the request of Mr. Vailandigham, the testimony of Mr. Cox was read over.

Mr. Vallandigham...Gentlemen of the Court, very briefly and respectfully I offer the following protest :

MR. VALLÁNDIGHAM'S PROTEST.

Arrested without due "process of law," without warrant from any judicial officer, and now, in a military prisI have been served with a "charge and specifications," on, as in a court martial or military commission.

I am not in either "the land or naval forces of the United States, nor in the militia in the actual service of the United States," and therefore am not triable for any cause by any such court, but am subject, by the express terms of the Constitution, to arrest only by due process of law, judicial warrant, regularly issued upon affidavit and by some officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the trial of citizens, and am now entitled to be tried on an indictment or presentment of a Grand Jury of such court, to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state of Ohio, to be confronted with witnesses against me, to have compulsory process for witnesses in my behalf, the assistance of counsel for my defence, and evidence and argument according to the common law and the ways of judicial courts.

And all of these I here demand as my right as a citizen of of the United States, and under the Constitution of the United States.

But the alleged "offence" itself is not known to the Constitution of the United States, nor to any law thereof. It is words spoken to the people of Ohio in an open and public political meeting, lawfully and peaceably assembled under the Constitution and upon full notice. It is words of criticism of the public policy of the public servants of the people, by which policy it was alledged that the welfare of the country was not promoted. It was an appeal to the people to change that policy, not by force, but by free elections and the ballot-box. It is not pretended that I counseled disobedience to the Constitution or resistance to laws and lawful authority. I never have. Beyond this protest I have nothing fur: her to submit.

C. L. VALLANDIGHAM. DIG.

Cincinnati, Ohio, May 7, 1863.

FINDING AND SENTENCE.

The Commission, after mature deliberation on the evidence adduced and the statement of the accused, find the accused Clement L. Vallandigham, a citizen of the State of Ohio, as follows:

Of the specification except the words: "That propositions by which the northern states could be won back, and the South guaranteed their rights under the constitution had been rejected the day before the last battle of Fredericksburg, by Lincoln and his minions, "-meaning, thereby, the President of the United States, and those under him in anthority; and the words, "asserting that he had firmly believed, as he asserted six months ago, that the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before" "Guilty."

And as to these words, "Not guilty."
Of the charge "Guilty."

And the commission do therefore sentence him, the said Clement L. Vallandigham, a citizen of the State of Ohio, to be placed in close confinement in some fortress of the United States, to be designated by the commanding officer of this department, there to be kept during the continuance of the war.

II. The proceedings, finding, and sentence in the foregoing case are approved and confirmed, and it is directed that the place of confinement of the prisoner, Clement L. Vallandigham, in accordance with the said sentence, be Fort Warren, Boston Harbor. By command of Major General BURNSIDE. LEWIS RICHMOND, Assistant Adjutant General. Here is the finding and the sentence. We place them on record, so that all posterity may