University of South Carolina Libraries
BY JAMES- A. HOYT\ ANDERSON C. H., S. C? THURSDAY MORNING, MARCH 8. 1866. VOLUME 1.?NUMBER 38. The Intelligencer IS PUBLISHED WEEKLY AT TEHEE DOLLARS PER AKNTJJi, JN U. S. CURRENCY, OS, 52.00 A YEAS IS SPECIE. KATES OF ADVERTISING. Adrertisements inserted at tli? rates of One Dol? lar p ar square of twelve Hues for the first insertion *nd Fifty Gents for eaeh subsequent insertion. Obituaries and Marriage Notices charged for at these rates. MILITARY TRIAL, [continued.] TT EL E DEFENCE. Synopsis of Hon. Armistead Burl's Speech. After an eloquent exordium, in which he aiverted to the nature and character of ti e Court "before which the accused had been arrainged, and^expressed his regret thai the trial had not taken place in the vicinity of the place where the tragedy ihad been committed, and before a jury of ins jeers, he ?aids Tho chief and striking excellence 6? trial by jury consists in the knowledge of the parties and their witness by the jury, and their peculiar and admirable aptness And Stness to determino the credibility of witnesses and to elicit truth from the con? flicting testimony. They are familiar with the habits, customs and usages of the community in which they live; they are concerned to uphold the majesty of the law by the punishment of crime, and their verdict is the voice of reason re? sponding calmly, but firmly, to evidence. I find additional cause of regret that this time-honored trial by good men and true of the vicinage?the peers of the accused is denied to him, in the fact that peace and order reign throughout the country, the Courts are open, law is enforced, and justice administered, in every District in the State?in the city in which this un? congenial Military Commission, with all its military appliances and surroundings, now sit6 to administer a novel and unfa miliar law?a law which derives its ex? istence not /rem the people, not from' the Constitution, but a law which finds ite origin and its definition in the mere will of military power. He next proceeded to give a brief nar? rative of the facts and circumstances con? nected with the now memorable murder in Anderson on the Sth day of October last: What are the particulars of that ex. traordinary narrative ? A. party of men were seen moving on foot along the pub? lic highway, in the stillness and darkness of the night, towards Brown's Ferry.? They wore no disguise and attempted no concealment. Not a word was speken and not a gesture made. In a few swift moments some inaudible, confused, but sharp words were uttered. Sounds of the tread of men, the falling of timbers in the flat, the exclamations of despair, or the piteous notes of supplication, fell faintly upon the air of the distant listen? ers, and quickly followed the startling re? port of firearms. "It is time we were gone" was hastily spoken by an unknown voice,*and imperfectly heard by an agita? ted witness, aud speedily a party of men, three on horses and some on foot, were seen coming as if from the ferry, and pro? ceeded along the Anderson road, out of hearing and out of sight. Thus quickly and mysteriously did the actors in this midnight drama make their appearance and their exit. The witnesses of these stirring events and startling sounds (Brown and Howell) skulled back to theii drowsy beds, jind dozed through the dull hours of the night. The community were not aroused. No "hue and cry" was raised, and this party of brigands were allowed, unmolested and unpursued, to return with their blood-stained spoils to the haunts from which they had sallied on this errand of murder and robbery. The morning came, the sun rose, but a deep stillness hung over the camps of the guard; not a sound broke the silenco but the soft murmurs of the placid waters of the Savannah. Tho camp was desorted; the guard, their arms, their horses, equip? ments had disappeared; all were gone. Information having been communica? ted to the garrison at Anderson, on Mon? day, the 9th, a detachraont arrived at tho ferry in the afternoon. Blood stains were found in the flat, and a bullet mark upon its side. A search in the river soon dis? covered tho bodies of the soldiers. They were exhumed from their watery graves, and were found marred with ghastly murderous wounds. This is litorally all that is knowni Ho commented severely on the in? action of the witnesses (Brown and How? ell,) in making no efforts, either to pre? vent tho crime or arrest the porpetrators, after the foul deed had been committed. He then proceeded, at considerable length, to analyze the testimony, of these two witnesses, and pointed out the conflicting character of their depositions, in reference to facts and circumstances, that could easily have been ascertained with cer? tainty. Of Warren Howcll he said : There was nothing in his life and ante? cedents to shield him from the suspicions of complicity in the-assassination of the guard; and to protect himself from ar? rest, imprisonment, and pi-obably from execution, he well understood the neces? sity of lodging information against others, before he could be arrested, and of becom? ing with Brown a witness to establish the charge. He has given to the Court an impressive illustration of the Value he sets upon his own life, and of the base means to which he can be driven to pre? serve it For myself, I must say that 1 think his love of life, and.of" such a life, most inordinate if it spring from* any sense of its value to him or to others. I hold that any life, the life of tho noblest and best of men, would be too dearly bought by the blasphemy and the perjury j with which he avows himself ready to save his own. ****** I On the first day of the sitting of the Court, during his examination-ia-chiet, under the solemn sanctions of an oath in the presence of the Court, and to the face of the prosecuting officer, he affirmed, as he had so uniformly and repeatedly done, that he did not recognize a Ringle indi? vidual of the party t'jat went to the ferry, nor the person whom he saw across the river, nor the voice of him who ordered him into the house. The Judge Advocate turned upon tho witness with a manner and a tone full of menace, and demanded of him whether ho had not both said and sworn that he did recognize some of t-hem. and objection having been made to the question, the Court adjourned. It appears that Howcll was taken from the Court room to a cell and confined alone during that night. He had been allowed to walk in the city in the day time with? out a guard, and to be with oilier wit? nesses for the prosecution at night. I cannot penetrate the secrets of his soli? tary prison house. I cannot tell what drugs or what enchantments wero used, what persuasions or what pressure ap? plied. If his conscience was not enlight? ened by the darkness of his dungeon, his eyes were openo11, and he came into the Court the next day, if not a better man, a more willing witness. The Court met on Saturday; the Judge Advocate had sub? sided into his usual blandness of manner, the impeaching question was withdrawn, and the witness unswore his testimony of the preceding day. Whereas on Friday he did not know tho man who called him? self Jones, on Saturday he knew him to be Peter Keys. Whereas on Friday he could not recognize any one of the assas? sins, on Saturday he could recognize Crawford Keyes, Peter Keyes, Robert Keyes. Elisha Byrum and Francis Gaincs Stowers. Feeling that some upolog}* for his deliberate and detestable perjury, so unblushingly confessed by tho witness, was necessary, the Judge Advo? cate considerately and kindly gave him the opportunity of saying that he swore falsely on Friday because his life had been threatened, as he was informed by Col. Brown, who was in command at Ander? son, and by a letter from his wife; but hejfailed to tell how his fears had bceu removed or quieted between tho adjourn? ment on Friday and tho meeting of the Court on Saturday. I have no inclina? tion to moralize or to comment upon a spectacle of such loathsome depravity and vulgar baseness. I disdain to point out the minor falsehoods and petty misstate mcnt8 in his testimony which pale in the presence of his monstrous perjury. But I caunot restrain the expression of my alarm and horror that upon the testimony of a person so infamous and degraded, a person of" such inveterate arid irrepressible mendacity, a person so demolished by nil tho means of discrediting a witness, a per? son so dishonored by his own unblushing aud blasphemous falsehoods, a great crime should be-alleged against a citizen of high position, exemplary deportment, immacu? late character and irreproachable life. Next proceeding to the witness Brown, he said: But Brown, tho owner of the ferry, testified that he recognized Stowcrs and Crawford Keyes, and assigned as reasons for recognizing Stowers tho following: "his general appearance, it looked like him; his dress, ifwas the same he had seen him wear that day; his clothes aro a kind of bluo-mixed, his hat was a light colored felt hat; there was nothing pecu? liar about him, but he knew the man when he saw him; ho might have been mistaken, but ho does not think he was!" and subsequently he said he thought "it was Stowers who ordered the guard to throw down their arms; thought it was his voice." It is clear that Brown enter? tains a slight impression that he saw Stowers on the night of the murder, but he does not preclude the possibility 'of having been mistaken. * * * * * Mr. Burt here entered elaborately into the difficulties of the question of personal identity; read a remarkable case in point; "James Grow," of York, in England; who was hung for no crime save that he un? fortunately resembled somebody else.? Vide p. 588, "Celebrated Trials of all Countries." But let us inquire what moans, what opportunity this witness had of recogniz? ing the prisoner. His testimony is that he was \n bed and had been sleeping; that his attention was arrested by the tramp of feet on the bridge some ten steps from the gate; that he arose in his bed, and saw a party of men as they entered the gate, distant from him some eighteen or twenty yards; that they passed within some ten steps of the bed within which ho was csconced, and were within the range of his vision some thirty yards, during ten of which their backs were presented to him. They made no halt, and uttered no word; that two were, walking side by beside in front, and the others "scattered along'*?behind them. Howell swore that the night was dark, that the moon was not giving light, and the silence of Brown is a tacit corrobora tion of the fact. These are the circum? stances, and the ouly circumstances under" which the witness saw this party of men, and these are the only means which he possessed of identifying them. The Court will recollect that the witness said he identified or recognized Stowers and Crawford Keyes, as the party proceeded towards the ferry, and not on their return. The witness voluntarily denied himself the means of verifying the correctness of the impression that the accused and Crawford Keyes were of the party, by sneaking out of his bed, and his house, and taking a position in the rear of a Louse some thirty or forty yards from the road, from which he saw dimly three men on horses, and others on foot, returning lrom the ferry. That position was evi? dently taken more for concealment than observation, more that ho should not be observed than that he might observe others, and he has not pretended that it gave him any facility for testing the ac? curacy of the individual resemblances which he imagined he detected, as the party proceeded towards the river. But the witness testified that he "thought" the voice that ordered t\e soldiers to sur? render was the voice of Stowers. Tho utterance of these few words was the only means the witness had of identi? fying the voico of the accused. The dis? tance from the ferry to the witness' house, Dr. Pillsbury said, is about three hundred and twenty-one yards. *** * * * * * I think the witness has not created the impression thut ho is a very accurate ob? server, or a very calm listener; and the incidents of that night were calculated to disturb the oomposure of a cool and self possessed man. They were exciting beyond anything that had occurred in the sluggish and monotonous life of the wit? ness, and if his imagination gained the mastery ovc his reason, it is peculiarly of his mental constitution for which he ought not to be held responsible. * * * *** * * The hypothesis which I suggest is, that Brown conjectured that the cotton was to be taken away by this party-of men, and that the owner of the cotton and the owner of the boat were most likely to be engaged in it, and the unmanly fear and trepidation which their numbers and ob? ject inspired, and with apprehensions of fearful consequences to himself if the cot? ton should bo removed, he clothed tho ghostly phantoms of his imagination in tl c nondescript dross of Stowers and [ Crawford Keyes. This would be, 1 con fess, a most charitable interpretation of his extraordin?r}- testimony and conduct. **** * * * * I'have shown that the only evidence of identity is tho vague impression from general resemblances, founded upon hasty and imperfect observation by an agitated witness; that his means of knowledge were too scant and meagre to authorize that impression, or to justify a Court in putting reliance upon it; that his bold? ness of assertion is prompted by the bias of his feelings, and not the dictates of his reason, and that his convictions are as il ? logical as his knowledge was defective. I But such as it is, this is the sum and the quality of tho evidouco against the ac I cused. Such as it is, this is all of it. I I earnestly and confidently submit that it j is too feeble and too flimsy to overcome the presumption of innocence that stands like a wall between the accused and the accuser. Against testimony so light and shadowy I interpose the impenetrable shield of a good character, an untarnished name, and a blameless and bonevr.lent life. "The proof of a criminal charge must establish it beyond all rational doubt. In proportion to the enormity of the crime, tjpust be the force and conclusiveness of the evidence. The accused is bound by no rule of law, bound by no rule of evi? dence, to establish his. innoconcce ; the prosecution is bound by every rule of law, and every rule of evidence, to establish his guilt; and in the name of law in the name of justice, in the name of truth, in the name of innocence, I demand his acquittal of a charge so grave, of a charge so ground? less. Mr. Burt next proceeded to examine the motives that could have led to the commission of such a crime. In the ac? cused, he said, we find a man of unblem? ished character, good social position, am? ple means; tljese alone would appear to shield him from the possibility of such an imputation. We would not expect to find such a man guilty of so grave an of-t fence, unless there be a powerful incen? tive. But in the present case, the only motive that has been imputed at all, is that he was interested to the extent of the amount of "the freight of a few bales of cotton, from Brown's Ferry to Augusta. The cotton was never claimed as his; the parties murdered wero strangers to him; there could have been no personal resent? ment. The cotton could not havo been the object of Iho expedition, for the cot? ton, it is proved, was not touched. To found a charge of guilt upon such grounds and such motives, is illogical in the ex? treme. The learned Counsel next discussed the evidence offered of an alibi. The hour, he stated, at which the murder was com? mitted, was important; and yet, singular to say, neither Brown nor Howcll pre? tended to anything liko accuracy in the statement of it. Howell stated that the moon was not shining. Wc know that the moon rose that night a little after 10 o'clock. Thuddous Robinson, who came home after tho moon had risen, found the accused at his house. The alibi has been clearly proven by four witnesses (J. G. Richardson, Sallio Stowers, Thaddeus Robinson, and Henry Preston,) whose I character no witness has dared to assail. I With regard to the testimony of Ed? mund and Squire, he showed tho falsity I of tho motives alleged by them for their [ recantation, viz., the fear of contradiction. They acknowledged perjury upon pre* cisely that point of their testimon}-, which admitted of no contradiction, inasmuch as no one was present when Stowers gave them Drandy. Squire, in his second de* position, could not say from whom he had obtained the brandy, which he admitted he had on Monday morning. A.iother important consideration is the fact that Stokers, on Monday, knew that Squire had come home late, and was in posses? sion of brandy; and the only explanation j of his knowledge is to bo found in the fact that ho saw him. on Sunday night, as stated by Squire, in his first testimony. Mr. Bart stated, that the efforts made by the prosecution to impeach tho testi? mony of Henry Preston had proven an utter failure. The simultaneous firing of several shots at the ferry might be heard at Stowers's house, or the presence of a breeze might readily convey tho sound. The experiment of Dr. Pillsbury did not test this point at all. Besides, Squire'and Garrett, a half mile from Stowers' house, had heard the discharges so distinctly, as to be startled by tho sound?so much so, as to elicit from Garrett the profane ex? clamation, which called forth that pious rebuke from the saintly Squire : "Garrett, stop cussin." The circumstances of Stowers' conduct at Stinson's Ferry, cited as an argument of an intention to escape, wore too insig? nificant to call for serious argument. His subsequent conduct in Augusta, where he lived for several days at a hotel and on his boat, rebut any such implication. That he left Brown's Ferry with so small a car? go, has been fully accounted for, by proof of his intention to run his boats between Augusta and Savannah. Tho defense, he said, had not only clear? ly established tho innocence of his client, but had gone farther in indictating who the real perpetrators were of this crime. The witnesses, Alloy and Campbell, prov? ed that a party of six men, with their horsos corresponding in age, color and sex to those of the three soldiers, had boon seen, immediately after the murder, not far irora Brown's Ferry, hastily making thoir escape; and one of them actually asserted that they had just killed three men. The counsel closed his able argument in the following words: "My task is fin? ished. I have done. But I will not re? sist the impulses of my nature, by omitting to say how earnestly I lament the mur? der of that youthful guard and deeply I regret that the drama of Brown's Ferry was enacted within the borders of my State. Every emotion of my own heart tell me it was prompted by no animosity to the Government whose flag was borne by the guard. With their arms, the peo? ple of South Carolina have laid down their resistance. A high principle and a great cause have been decided against them, by -tho last and highest argument of nations. They acquiesce in their fortune, and will abide their fate. With a heart that was never false, and an honor that was never stained, they have pledged submission to the conqueror, and they invoke the God of BTeaven to witness with what faultless fidelity it shall be rendered. Mercy is not the attribute of the sword, "and they make no appeal and utter no complaint. They crouch not to the conqueror with prayers for pity. With no spirit of defi? ance, but with no tone of despair, they say to him: 'Strike, but hear.' You are tho roprcsenatives of a great and virtuous Government, in a crushed and conquered counUy Your word is law, and your arm is power. Bomember justice graces aud equanimity adorns tho ruler of a migh? ty nation. We look with confidene to one, and with hope to the other. Speech of Gen, James Conner* Mr. Conner, in his opening, vindicated the community of Anderson from the im? plication of countenancing such a crime* That community, wasted by war,yearned for peace and the blessings ofpeaco. Tu? mult, violence, murder, were foreign to its interest^ as they were repugnant to its moral sentiment. It is the natural im? pulse and interest of every community that such crimes should not go unpunish? ed. There must be somewhere the pow? er to punish; but it behooves those charged with tho duty, to sco that wisdom guides power; and that in' zeal to punish admit? ted crime, the}* do not involve the inno? cent with tho guilty. It is not revenge but justice which this court is to adminis? ter?not to register a decree, but to ren? der a judgment. One of the chief difficulties in the de? fence has arisen from the little zeal, intel? ligence and judgment which were exhibi? ted in investigating the cs.se, while the fact was fresh and the track of the mur? derers recent. Had the case been then properly investigated, the truth would have been manifested and the real cul? prits arrested. What are the facts ? Three men were murdered at Brown's Ferry. Now, what is the first questior, which every mau asks himself in such a mat'.er ? " What was tho motive?" It is demonstrable j tha^ whatever may have been the mo? tive', tho cotton was not. In the first place, there was no change in the position of the cotton after the murder, and no manifestation of any intention to touch the cotton. They came with no carts; they could not bear it away; they could not boat it away. Had they intended to boat it, would they hare embarrassed themselves with horses? Besides, the highest number of the party is six or seven, while seven were necessary to nav-1 igate the boat, and not a man left to take care of their own horses, or lead off the | horses of tho guard. The intent of the j party was confined to the murder of the guard. Wo need not reason about that point. Wo have the express declarations of the parties concerned in the murder.' Directly after tho last shot, a voice ex? claimed "It is timo we were gone," and the men returned. What wero the owners of this cotton to gain by the murder ? It was as clear then as now, that injury to the guard would be followed by the arrest of every? body connected with the cotton. The murder was the surest mode of prevent? ing tho release of the cotton. If the mur? der rendered removal of the cotton im? practicable ; if the removal of the cotton is impeded, instead of facilitated, by the commission of tho crime?then, clearly, the cotton ceases to be a motive to tho crime. The position, ;;go, character and intel? ligence of the accused, all preclude tho idoa that he could have had anything to do with it?no friendship or association between the families of Keyes and Stow? ers, and no interest impelling him. This murder was the result of combi? nation and conspiracyf none proved; nor has the Judge Advocato proved what became of tho horses. He has shown neither the beginning nor the end. The whole case ought to bo before the Court; but its judgment is asked on a fragmont. We have proved every movement of the accused on Sunday; wo have proved him across the river, on the Georgia side, at dark, Sundaj evening; there is no proot that he ever recrossed; and the strongest reasons to show that hie never did recross. "There was no means of crossing except.at McCurry's^Ferry, a little ovor eight miles round ; and not sufficient time to do that: But supposing that he did cross at McCurry's, why, after the murder, should he return the way he came; again risk recognition by Brown and Howell, and at McCurry's, when he could take the batteau, and recross to tho Georgia sido unseen ? Bear in mind that Stowers was known to Brown and How? ell?that the arrival of tho murderers fol? lowed close upon the crossing of tho man who was ferried over, whom Howell says was Peter Keyes, and was in the party; that the party thus knew that Brown and Howell were awake; that Stowers could have gone to the river unnoticed by either; and is it not something highly improbablo^that he should havo volunta? rily repassed by Brown and Howell? Was any one ever known to act so thought? lessly, so recklessly, so madly ? Then take his conduct after the mur? der.. He continues the regular transac? tion of his business. Counsel here commented on tho testi? mony of Adjutant Johnson, about the in? cidents at Stinson's Ferry ; and showed that there never was any attempt to ar? rest ; and the little zeal, intelligence, or judgment, which had characterised tho investigation. To a guilty man, the visit of-the Uni? ted States soldiers to Stinson's Ferry would have been warning enough-^snffi cient notice to escape. But Stowers goes quietly to Augusta; adopts no conceal? ment, iives at the hotel, and after arrest? ed, has still opportunities of escape, and does not avail himself of them. Against all this wr:0'Ut of evidence of tho strongest char.t<-it?r, because it is the internal evidence of the case itself,, what is there ? The doubtful testimony of a single man [Brown.] But two inen, "whose testimony in tho slightest degree affects the accused. Look at their position: the only men near the guard, both Confederate soldiers, without any witnesses to their innocence; much in their position to ^larm them as to the probability that suspicion would be directed to them ; incumbent onthem to elucidate tho matter. Thoy felt that they had to explain it, to divert suspicion from themselves. They were not fti a 'position to note accurately, or relate dis? passionately. Their conclusion was the result, not of what they saw., but of what they thought; they reasoned themselves to their conclusion, and then swore to it. Counsel next reviewed the testimony of Howell, showing its inconsistencies I and contradictions, and how it is neither I sustained by itself, nor by the testimony j of Brown; tho inconsistencies in the nar? ratives of the two, as to tho same trans? action, viewed from the same stand-point. Contradicted by itself, and the testimony of Brown, it is utterly demolished by the evidence of Ho well's character! "Sever was there a raoro infamous character proved upon a man?a liar from his youth upwards. It is needless to bring witnes? ses to the infamy of his character. None could make any exposure of his moral delinquency equal to that which ho has himself furnished. On Friday he narrates the whole story from tho commencement to the end. There is nothing material to add. He closes with tho declaration that he does not know who Jones was, and did not recognize any of the party. The next day he contradicts it all, and Jones is Jones no .more, but Peter Keyes. He not only knows Keyes, but he even knows the horse; it was tho horse that hauled the cotton, and he knew every man in the party. Friday everything is sworn one way; Saturday everything is sworn tho other way. Thero was flat perjury one day or the other. I care not on which side the perjury lies. He is per? jured, and being perjured, his whole tes? timony must be cast aside. The - rule is too clear to admit of argument. An ac? complice, whose character is nnimpeach ed, is to be believed only so far as ho is corroborated; but a perjured witness is not to be believed at all. You cannot corroborate a perjury, and a perjured wit? ness can corroborate nothing. Counsel here read an oxtract from the opinion of Story, Justice, in tho case of Santissima Trinidad, 7th Wheaton. The motives of the perjury are a mat? ter of indifference. The fact itself, is strange enough, but the circumstances attending it still more strange. Up to Friday, the witness Ho .veil had been at large. On Friday the Court adjourned, this question pending: "Have you not, {Concluded on Fourth Page.')