of the Mincio" article. At the last Presidential election. Raymond agreed with him to oppose Lincoln, but Lincoln bought Raymond off, and Hurlbut withdrew from the Times and united with Captain (now General) Lowel and others to oppose Lincoln and the war policy, and finally came to the South for the purpose of visiting his relations in Charleston, and tendering his pen and other services in England to the Confederate Government, when he was arrested at Atlanta and sent here, himself as he says soliciting that destination and paying the expenses of the escort.
The testimony up to this point is very high and conclusive in his favor, showing what he now upon his oath affirms to be true; that the sentements expressed in the article in the Edinburgh Review have been entirely renounced upon conviction; and if the case had rested here I should recommended his discharge without hesitation.
But if take here a new and very remarkable aspect, viz: After the battle of Manassas a man named Windsor was captured upon whom a letter was found addressed to "William H. Hurlbut, British subject, traveling for his health in the South, Richmond, Va., to be called for". The letter is dated Park Row, New York, July, 1861. It was written before the 1st of July because it alludes to the meeting of the approaching Congress of the 4th of July. The letter is of the most offensive kind to us, and refers to and seems to be in reply to letters previously written by Mr. Hurlbut to the writer.
Mr. Hurlbut admits that he knew a person named Windsor as an employe in the Times Office when he was one of its editors, and Park Row is the locality of the Times Office; but he denies all knowledge of the letter and its writer and protests that he has not written a letter to or for the Times since separation from it. He denies that the letter is in the handwriting of Raymond, and there is some conflict in the testimony upon that point, though it preponderates very decidedly against the identity of the writing with Raymond's.
Upon these facts the question is is the prisoner Hurlbut the Mr. Hurlburt to whom the letter is addressed? The difference in the spelling to the name amounts to nothing. The insertion of the "r" might be a trick or an accident, and the English address rather strengthens than weakens the case because the prisoner had the word London on his trunk and the English address was the best disguise, and notwithstanding all the delay and notoriety of the case no other person of the name of Hurlbut or Hurlburt has been heard of, and it is moreover exceedingly improbable that there in the country two men whose names differed from each other only in a single letter; that there was a William H. Hurlbut and a William H. Hurlburt. I do not doubt therefore that the letter was intended for the prisoner.
But the question arises was there any authority for writing it? Is there any truth in its statements that it is a reply to letters written by Hurlbut? The letter is no proof of its contents; it is but the operation of an anonymous writer, which is opposed by the oath of the prisoner and much testimony showing that de did not enetertain the sentiments supposed to be ascribed to him by the letter; for the letter is not explict by any means as to those setiments. In fact it is conjecture only that they were inimical to the South. The answers to these question must be in my opinion in the negative. If this is proof then the prisoner is a spy, at least in the odious sense if not tl sense of the term, but it is very clear that if he were upon his trial as a spy he could not be convicted upon this evidence, for so far from the letter's being sufficient to convict him it would not be competent evi-