Question. Did you hear similar language used by him?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Do you remember his comments on the change of the policy of the war some year or so after its commencement and what references were made by him in that connection?
Answer. He did refer to the change in the policy of the war and I think devoted some time to show that the war had been deviated from a war for the restoration of the Union into a war for the abolition of slavery.
Question. What did he claim to have been its original purpose as avowed and how shot it?
Answer. He referred in that connection to the Crittendent resolutions, declaring the war to be one for the restoration of the Union and not to break up the "institution" of a State.
Question. Did he counsel any other mode in that speech of resisting usurpations of arbitrary power except by free discussion and the ballot-box?
Answer. He did not.
Question. Were any denunciations of the officers of the Army indulged in by him or any offensive epithets applied to them?
Answer. He occasionally used the words "the President and his minions," but I did not understand him to use them in connection with the Army. It was not in that connection. It was in connection with arbitrary arrests.
Question. Do I understand you to say that the denunciations to which you refer were chiefly in reference to arbitrary arrests?
Answer. My recollection is that is the connection in which they were used. He applied some pretty strong epithets to spies and informers whom he did not seem to like very much.
Question. Do you remember the connection in which some words to this effect were used at the close of the speech, with regard to the possibility of a dissolution of the Union and of his own determination in regard to such a contingency?
Answer. I could not give the exact words. I remember the metaphor that "he would not be a priest to minister at the altar of disunion. " He was speaking about the Union and his attachment to it. I cannot give the words of the metaphor.
Question. What counsel did I give at the close of my speech upon that subject?
Answer. He invoked the people under no circumstances to surrender the Union.
Question. Do you remember any rebuke in connection with the Butler County case of men who hurrahed for Jeff. Davis?
Answer. Yes; I do. He denounced the applause of Davis.
Question. Was anything said in that speech in reference to the war except in condemnation of what he claimed to be the policy upon which it was now being waged and as a policy which he insisted could not restore the Union but must end finally in disunion?
Answer. I can only give my understanding. I do not know about inferences people might draw. I understood his condemnation of the war to be launched at its perversion from its original purpose.
The court here adjourned to meet at 4. 30 p. m. of the same day.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
The witnesses Locky Harper, J. T. Irvine and Frank H. Hurd, summoned of the defense, not having appeared the judge-advocate stated