Decatur Eagle, Volume 8, Number 47, Decatur, Adams County, 27 January 1865 — Page 1

TJI K I) ECA TI R EAG LE.

VOL. 8,

I MCttUJ B’SIVESS WS! I BURT HOUSE, I Decatur, Indiana, I C. BURT, Proprietor, I -XTfILL jive good attention, and make reaII '• sonable charges n’"-v6 ly. IF." A. JFI JEFF. I Phvsicjfin and I DECATUR. INDIANA. ■ rrOFFICE—Tn Houston's Block, second ■ floor over Drug Store. ■ vB-n!5. David st nd a baker, AT TO RNE Y- A T-T. ATV AMI Claim Agent, DECATUR, INDIANA, ■ NTTILL practice in Adams and adjoining ■ VV Counties; will secure bonntie'.pensions Ma nd all kinds of claims against the GovernI IZOFFICE-—On Main Street, immediately ■South of the Auditor’s Office. v6-n42 ■James r. boro: I Attbrnrv and Counselor nt Law, I DFC4TUR, INDI IN V ■ JTTOFFICE.in Rernrder’R‘Oflic«’. rp K7 ITIT.L nmr*ic*» in the o f t-h** Tenth |E ’ ’ -F'-i Tin 1 . Circuit. Attend ta she Rprlpmp ■ tion ..f f/'.'i'F' the Ph vment of Especial; i a ■ will h»» 7 ; ' ■••! to fh<* collection of tensions, and all claims a<rnm«t the i |i a : landfew sorg, PHYSICHV and BURGEON, DECATUR, INDIANA. I I OFFICE—Main St . opposite Mpihor* <t! ■l'.f.i.’t. Dry Goo U Store. vßn42 v. B. snrcoKE, Practical Dentist • 1 nni nnxv prepnrod to front all 1 g of the teeth and mouth in B a scientific manner T am also) ♦<» insert 4rtific l Tedh on Gold - or Vulcanite Rubber. f r om one tooth to j entire set Decayed teeth filled with gold, j foil or artificial bone. Scupvv and tooth j [Hadi? cur<*d in a few minutes, all of which I j warrant. Tooth brushes, fno’h powders, ■Booth ach'- medicine far s- le. I r’Offico. one Ml door south of Nuttman dr Crawford’s Store, in | ■hne brick. i David St dabaker’s RTAT, ESTATE VGENrV. I TffiOß thr purchase and sale of Real Estate by ; | » the only Licenced in the connty, now ; ■ offer* for «alo at hislaw office, in Decatur, a fine • ■ lot of valuable lands situate in different parts of; ■ Adams COlinty. Those n-ishin * to pnrch*’<n 'Till G W'-ll tn 1 Sowirtlii") Those wMu“.«r to sell will dn ■ well lomniPtn h : m X<» K-dos. m. clr’T'Zcs. Hi’’ ■ is. also. Licenc'd to draw D"»’d« and *ll other i ■ instruments of writing. and will do the same • ■ with neatness and dispatch. Sop*. 6 I Examiner’s Notice. 11 1 VIE School Examiner nf Adams ! I ’ County. Indiana, will hold examinationhi* office in Decatur upon the fourth Saturday I ■•f the following named months, to wit*—Janu j Harr. April. Jnnn. March. May. I ecemher; and | onch Saturday of September, October and j Exercises will commence each day j ten n’clocK. a. in. I Teacher* will please bear in mind that there • ■|a«-;]] hr ro private examination* eiven. unless j |r the ni nlicant can show there is actual necessity I ' therefor ■b. officer*, and other friend* of education ' pi re cordially invited to be i attendance. Applicants with whom the examiner i* not ' ■ i-tTkuHi.’illv ’cqua’ntefl will be required 1onro«- < Bi nt a certificate signed by a pmrni p nt citizen | ■of the county to the effect that said applicantl ■ sustains a good moral character. J. R. 8080. Examiner. 1 May 30. 1863 Adams County. I ■VICKS B ITRG! I. J. Miesse, In his Line of Bn c iDefies the World! \LL other LIKE INSTITUTIONS thrown in the shade! All efforts at COMPETITION jjßr'Ke by the BOARD It is acknowledged by that he can sell a BETTER article of Harness, Saddles, Bridle*, Whips, and all such like r- iWigi ESf<: LESS money than any other establishment ■ j Northeastern Indiana, without exception. B His work is all warranted to be made of the ! best material, and made by oid and experienced workmen B’lfceiea and carriages trimmed in the latest and most approved style. Repairing done on short notice and at reasonable rates. IttTGivp us a call, and we will convince you ; 4|b the truth of what we *av. We PAY CASH « of our stock, and consequent!v RUY CHEAPR than if wp bought on TIME, and of course , n sell in proportion. iW IHIH .UIYEHTISHIIATX. I’. S. UNDERHILL, -dealer in— Marble Monumerts, HEAD-STONES, MANTLES, CABINET-SLABS, <fc c „ <fc c „ FORT WAYNE, IND. I Work done to order on the shortest notice and in the neatest manner ■vsn39 S. PATTERSON, Agent I

|MEYFR & BRO.. Wholesale and Retail Dealers in Drugs and Medicines,! Paints, Oils, French and American Window , Glass, Dve Stuffs, Brushes, Spices, Liquors and Wines, Coal Oil and Coal Oil Lamps, »tc. TTNo. 95 Columbia Street, F-ut Wayne, Tn-, diana. v6n3B i 18. W. OAKLEY, Wholesale Deafer in Hardware and Stoves. And Manufacturer of TIN, SHEET IRON AND COPPERWARE, AT THE GRANITE STORE, No. 79 Columbus Street, vln2t Fort v ' ’ayne, Ind. ( Large Fa!! & Winter Stock OF READY-MADE Clothing. TiEME & BRO., Fashion able Tailors, Fort Wayne, Indiana. J. J. KAMM J. R M’CtTRDV. ! J. J. KAMA! & CO. WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PEAL'RS IN Paint*, Oils, Varnishes, Brushe , GLASS, WALL TAP ER, Window Curtains and Fixtures. <fcc., ’ No. 57 Columbia Street. Fott Wayne. Ind. .’ 1864. T. LAUFERTY, No 91 Columbia Stre, t. on» door west of 1 Brandriff’s Stove and Hardware Store, FORT V Y NF, IND , ■?XTOULD say to the public in wi nr-i! that he | 'V is determined to sell DRS’GOODS,Bon i nets Hats, Fiats, Carpets, Trunks. <tc , dr . cheaper than anv other House in the city, or ! country —No Also, Home-made, Bondy made clothing, or made to order—Warranter! COUNTRY MERCK ANTS ! supplied cbeaner than anv other House in the [ we~t of the Mountains. Call and see before 1 nurchasin"’ els.where. No trouble to show' Igoods. ‘ T. LAUFERTY. No. 91 Columbia Street, vsn4l Fort Wayne, Ind i). F, Coinparet, I’ORK PACKER,| MUM S I'KI’JiSSIM' Merchant, i FORT WAYNE, IND. General Dealer in l1! kifids of Grain, Seeds, ' , Fifth, Salt. Produce. Agricultural Implements, , Best Brand Family Flours. Liberal advances made on Produce, <kr. v6u44tf GO ODI EW$~ UNION STOVE STORE!! The rea lers of the “Eagle’’ are informed thn ASTI & AGNEW J Have on baud a very and fine <trck | COOKING. PARLOB and BOX STOVES, | of the very best patents—none better can be ! found i n the United States —wb ich we will sei 'at greatly REDUCED RATES. All Stoves , wa-ranted to be as represented, or Hnot w*», will refund the money and have oo unkind, feelings. Wo have also a good stock of j Hardware, Tin, Copper i : and SHEET IRON Ware, and House Furnish ing goods, which we are selling very low. i We buy Stoves in Cincinnati. I We buy Stoves in Pittsburgh. I We buy Stoves in Troy. We buy Stoves in Cleveland. We sell Stoves on time. We sell Stoves for Cash. Wo sell Stoves cheap. * I W- sell GOOD TIN W ARE. Purchasers will do well to call and examine ' ©ur stock ,in order to j udpp for themselves, a ! ASH XGNFW’ki R. H. Schwegman’s old stand . No. a 7 P'dnmbia Street. T ffn39. Fort Wayne .Indiana New China and Queensware Store! No. 69 < olumbia St., Ft Wavne, ! One door east of Thieme's Clothinq Store. HUGH KLIX Respectfully announces that he has for sale, ; as above, a fine assortment of i China, Queensware, Glassware, Fancv China and Glass Ornaments for Holiday presents, stone china dinner and tea setts, common dinner and tea setts, tumblers, decanters, wine and beer glasses, lamps, yellow ware, stone crocks, anp everything else in that line of business. Country dealers Will find it to their advantage to call and exa I mine, as he will sell cheap. July 23. '6l.

“Our Country’s Good shall ever be our Aim—Willin’ to Praise ani not afraid to Blame.”

DECATUR, ADAMS COUNTY, INDANA, JANUARY 27, 1865.

’’E" BTWaEC DECATUR EAGLE, ISSUED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING BT n. /. CALI.EX. B. D. mmOEL.~ mm a- iim,u, PrULISHERS AND PROPKIKTOR*. OFFH E—On Mt.nrop Street in the second t siery of the building, f rmerly occupied by Jesse Niblick a& «i Shoe Store. Terms of Subscription; • One copy one year, in advance, ,|-1 50 . ! If paid within thp year, 2 f)0 tlf not paid until thp year hfts expired, 250 lEFNo paper will bo discontinued until all i arrurages are paid, except at the option of the t publishers. I — Terms ®f Advertising: I One Square Jthe space of ten lines bre- • vierj three insertions, 40 I j Each subsequent insertion, ' 50 . | O'No advertisement will be considered lo 8« ' than one square: owr one square will ho conn- ■ ted and charged as two; over two, as three. <(-c Str A liberal dis from the above rates made on all advertisements inserted fora pe I riod longer than three months. I - Local Notices fifteen cents a line for each insertion. » Job Printing’. Wo arp prcnnrpd to do rfll find* of Plain rnd ' Fancy Job Printing at the mo«t r-'aconable ratps Givp us a call we feel confident that satisfaction can be given. ARGUMENT OF John i-. Cofforth, Esq. IN DEFENSE OF di. 1. it mien. I On Joint Trial For Treason And Con \ spiracy With. Messrs. Bowles, Hum phr ys. And Horsey, ht Indianapolis, j December 7, 1864. Before A Mditary Commission Composed Os The Followj ing officers : I. Brevet Brigadier-General Silas Col ! grove. U. S. Vols ; 2. Colonel William |E. McLean, 43 Inf, Ind V 01..; 3. Col-' ; one! Ambrose E Stevena, of Michigan, V . R. C ; 4 Colonel Thomas I Lucas, 16th Inf., Ind Vols ; 5 Colonel Charles |D. Murray, 89ih Inf., Ind. Vols : 6 ■ Colonel Benjamin Spooner, S3d Inf., Ind. Vols ; 7 Colonel Richard P. DeHart. 128ih Inf, Ind. Vols.; 8. Colonel Ansel D Wass. 60th Mass. Inf.; 9. Col- I one] Reuben Williams, 12th In!., Ind. Vols.; 10. Colonel Thomas W. Bennett, ; 69th Inf., Ind. Vols; 11. Lieutenant-I Colonel Albert Heath. 100th Inf., Ind. Vols. Major Henry L. Burnett, Judge: Advocate Department of the Ohio and ; Northern Department. [ Continued ] But possibly the prosecution will abandon its theory as to Che supreme power of the Grand Commander. Because, if I insurrection had been one of the purposes . of the order, why try to keep Mr. Millii gan ignorant of a fact which of necessity 'he must have known ; anti therefore why I impose secrecy upon his messenger, Mr. Harrison. This I think not only shows I how the members of the order, but also I the Grand Commander, understood that; I part of the obligation which pledged them Ito obedience. Thus then, we find, when ! we come to look at the case as Judges and awyers, and not as mere par’izans, that there has been proven no such com pli-te agreement, even on the part of Dodd, as is necessary under the Liw of 1 Conspiracy ; much less nn the part of 1 Mr. Milligan who knew nothing of it until it had died from want of the sympathy : of those whose approval was to give it j vital force. Was it necessary, I might, without impropriety, refer to the cloud of suspicion through which the testimony of Stidger, Zumro, Heffren and Wilson came to us. Tita two former stand in the execrable light of informers, the latter, in tne equal- : ly odious one of accomplices purchasing | their own immunity at the expense of their former alleged confederates ; the 1 former have been ever regarded with I scorn and abhorance, while the latter have always been characterized by all: I ’ I

I . honorable minds as infamous. Let Heffren pass—ves, “room for the leper, room '1” O' Wilson, I scarcely knowhow to speak—he is self-accused and selfcondemned. Contrast him, if you please, I with the hor.orable bearing of mv client, and it ought to make the “blush of : shame” crimson even the cheek of Wilson. He came to the witness stand with traitors money under his control, and loaned out to his friends—he comes and confesses to the treason, as well as the ineffable meanness of accepting from the hands of his country’s enemies the pitiful sum of his expenses to and from Chicago. And yet, this double dyed traitor—tr»i : tor aci'otding to his own showing, to his I country, and then, for the sake of purI chasing his own release, traitor to his I former alleged confederates—is to go ! forth (0 the world, duly endorsed by the : Government as honest and credible, for, I understand, it asks you to believe him. Oh ! kind and parental Administra- : tion. that allows the confessed traitor to go unpunished, that it may wreak its vengeance upon a mere political oppolnent ! | No Court, either in ancient or modern 1 times, has allowed the conviction of an individual upon the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. Mr Greenleaf, in | speaking of this kind of evidence, says : | “The case of accomplices is ususually mentioned under the head of infamy.”. Creenl. Ev , § 379. Mr. Starkie aaya ; “With respect toj the force and effect of such testimony, it must from its very nature be regarded) I with jealous? and suspicion ” “It is hard (Lord Hale observes) to take away the life nf any parson upon the evidence of a particeps eriminis. unless there be very considerable circumstances which may give the greater credit to what he . swears.” ‘‘ln strictness of law indeed, a prisoner may be convicted on the testimony of a single accomplice, since, where competent evidence is adduced, it is for the jury to determine the effect of that, evidence. Butin practice it is usual to direct the I jury to acquit the prisoner, when the evi-j : dence of an accomplice stands uncorrohorated in material circumstances, but, this it is said, is a matter resting entirely within the discretion of the Courts.” 2 Stark. Ev., p 12. “But (says Mr. Phillips) though accomplices are received as witnesses, t,heir 1 ’ testimony ought to be received by a jury with a sober degree of jealousy and can-1 I tion, for on their own confession they: : stand contaminated with guilt, and in the hope of lessoning their own infamy, will j often be tempted to throw es much guilty as possible upon the prisoner. They ; : mav also in Lome cases be entitled to rewards on the prisoner’s conviction, and i in all cases expect to earn a pardon, and 1 ,as fear is usually their motive, the same ■ ' feeling mav tempt them to exaggerate) I their evidence for the purpose of destroy- i 1 ing their former associate and securing I I themselves against his vengeance.” 1 Phillipps Ev., 29. “But their testimony alone is seldom ■ of sufficient weight with a jury, to convict the offenders, the temptation to commit perjury being so great, where the witness bv accusing another nray escape I himself. Th" practice, therefore, is to advise the jury to regard the evidence of an accomplice only so far as he is con firmed in some part, of his testimony, by j unimpeachable testimony.—ib . n 32 Mr. Greenleaf says : “The degree of I credit which ought to be given to an ac-1 complice, is a matter exclusively within I the province of the jury. It has some-: times been said that they ought not to j believe him unless his testimony is corroborated by other evidence ; and without douht great caution tn weighing such testimony, is dictated by prudence and good reason. But ther»> is no such rule of law, it being expressly concede 1 that the jury may, if they please, act on the evidence of the accomplice without any confirmation of bis statement But on the other hand, judges, in their discretion, will advise a

1 . 'jury not to convict of felony upon the i testimony of an accomplice jlone, anti , without corroboration, and i?is now so generally the practice to give them such advice, that its omission would be regarded as an omission of duty on the part of j the judge. And, considering the respect always paid by the jury to this ad- , vice from the bench, it. maybe regarded 1 as the settled course of practice not to I convict a prisoner, tn any case of feionv, , | upon the sole and uncorroborated testi- , i mony of an accomplice.” 1 Greenl. Ev., )!§ 380. “Judges,” observed Lord F.llrnI borough, “will advise a jury not tn be- . ilieve an accomplice unless he is confirmed ; or only in so far as he is confirmed, but if he is believed, his testimony is unquestionably to establish the facts he deposes. Jones case, 2 Camp. 132. So. where on an indictment, for highway robbery, an accomplice only was called, th<Court, though it admitted such evidence was legal, thought it too dangerous to permit a conviction to take place, and the prisoners were acquitted. Jones & Davis case, 1 Leach 479. The practice, therefore, is for the Court to direct the ijurv in such cases to acquit the prisoner, unless in some respects the evidence is iconfirmed.” Roscoe’s Crim. Ev., p. 156. “It is usual for a Court to advise a jury not to regard the evidence of an ac- : j complice unless he is confirmed tn some j ) part of his testimony bv unimpeachable I testimony. If confirmed in some parts, he may be believed in othets.” U. 8. v )Kipler, 1 Baid. C. C. R. 22I feel as though I might stop here and rest the defense with propriety, but, some one might think my duty incomp’ete, and i ask: what about Mr. Milligan’s alleged position as a Major General in the order ? I i Well, that is an easy task, and shall soon ibe disposed of. And suppose, or admit, ' for the sake of argument, that he was. appointed a Major Genet al ; yet where is i the evidence that he ever accepted that I . ‘ appointment, or that he did not treat it; with merited contempt? I answer, none ) whatever. But perhaps it is proposed to I i invert the usual order of criminal juris-1 I prudence, and hold him guilty unless he proves himself innocent. Very well, even i ' in that case we have the necessary proof ; j | indeed, we are prepared for most any rule. ; ; Mr. Ibach informs us that at the Grand j Council, in June, 1 864, it was stated that | the gentlemen who had been appointed Major Generals, had not accepted, and: : that it was agreed in Grand Council, that! : if they did not accept by the then ensuing! 4th of Julv,that others should be appointed in their stead. Indeed there ii no credi-1 ble testimony—only an inference—that; !he ever knew of his appointment. Mr. Harrison states that the first appointment I was in September, 1363, and there is no 'pretence that Mr. M'iligan was at that: ' meeting ; nor was be ever informed of it' :in any official manner, as the Grand Sec- | j retary, Mr. Harrison informs us. The! same witness also slates that Mr. Milligan , o was again elected a Major General at the 1 February Grand Council ; but this was also done in hie absence. True, Heffren, states that Milligan was at that Grand ; Council, but this , is only another indication of the unworthiness of bis testimony, I lor we have the testimony of Messis. Bingham, Daily, M >ses Milligan, Lough-i ridge and Winters, all corroborating 1 Harrison and impeaching Heffren. Can , they be mistaken '? Mr. Daily, who is a practicing attorney at Huntington,informs I us that the Court at that place was then! jin session, and that Mr. Milligan was! j there. Moses Milligan, who was a court j I bailiff, gives us like testimony, Bing , [ham swears that lie was not there.' !Judge Loughridge, a delegate to the! council, inquired for him, and found be' was not present, and finally, Mr. Winters, a gentleman from Mr. Milligan’s town, tells us that they both bought railroad tickets for Indianapolis, but owin<r j to the crowded state of the cars when they arrived at Huntington, Mr. Milligan; refused to go and did not go. That he j l (witness) went, and that inquiry was I ‘I

Y). 47.

e' made of him for the reason of Milligan's I absence. Stidger states that the roll of 0 Major Generals mas called at the June 1 ; Council ; bat Mr. Ibach, the delegate - from Huntington, who went there with f! Milligan, contradicts this statement, and -(makes the reasonable one that if any one - from his own town had been named a I: Major General, he would have observed r it. But, tor the purpose of argument, , let us suppose he accepted the sounding .title of Major General, yet what was it , more than a mere intended compliment, 'or titular digntftaation '? Thus the title, . j “Grand Commander,” “Sergeant of the . Guard,” <fcc., & , are terms of high im- ■ poit in a lodge of “Sons 01 Malta,” and yet the recipients of these “bluMffntf honors” were never for that canse. considered as traitors, although the Order was “military in its character.” The title of “King” ’is one of high sigLificn- ! tion. and ordinarily means much ; and the office of “King” i- contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States ; and yet, who ever thought of hold' ing an individual guilty of a crime because ; of hia accepting and exercising the office ol King in a chapter of Roval Arch Masons. it is going back to those days of |constructive treason, when a man was ! hanged for dreaming that he had made bis son heir to the crown, although that was the name of his Inn ; and another, whose favorite buck had been killed by the King, for wishing that the deer, horns and all, were in the Ring’s belly. 4 Black. Com., p. 80, Names do' not always signify the same thing—a Major General in the army is a position well understood, and with well defined duties; but please tel] me, what were the duties I of a Msjor General in the Sons of Liberty ? Where is the evidence? Mere ! high sounding names will not do—wo must, have evidence. Men'slives are not to be forfeited by such flimsy stuff. But it is next insisted that Mr. Millij gan made a speech at a Democratic mas» meeting at Fort Wayne, on the 13th of August last ; in which it is claimed that : he uttered disloyal sentiments, urged resistance to the draft, and attempted to j incite insurrection. When we ask for the proof of alt this, we are referred to I the testimony of an itinerant news-gath-'erer of the Cincinnati Gazette, which he says is not a partisan paper, who was (there hunting at “a penny a line” for some item to be used against the Demo- ; cratic party, in that then political ern- : test. True, he would have you believe I that the speech was very disloyal; but I against this, we have the testimony of . honorable witnesses. Messrs. Bird and . Winters, who heard the speech through* (out, (Mr. Winters having reported it for his paper,) and who swears there was noj thing said in it to incite resistance to the ; draft, or which nounse'led insurrection ; that the speech was a dry, able and argumentative one, characterized by mod(eration and respectful language towards ! his opponents; that he dealt in no denunciation of the Government, as Mr. ; Bush would have you believe bit made a broad distinction between the Government and the administration. No insurrection followed that speech. True he argued in favor of the doctrine of State Sovereignty. Well, suppose he did. It is no new doctrine, but !is old as the constitution. The great and j good men of America have labored tor I the same ideas, and yet were unconscious ;of committing crime. For sixty years our government was administered, with { most unparalleled success, on that very j basis. But suppose the party in power j deems it a political heresy ; yet, is heresy I of political opinion a crime in this coun- : try ? Who is to be the judge of the I question of heresy of opinion ? 7s it the j party in power ? Then it wou'd be very ; easy for them to perpetuate that power, by condemning all their political opponents to the halfer, as traitors. Liberty of speech would then consist in the right Ito say, freely, what th- administration (dictated. Zt was a wise remark of Jes- ! ferson that “Error of opinion mav well I he tolerated as long as reason is left frea I to combat it.” [To be concluded next week ]