Of specification 1st, charge 2d, not guilty. Of specification 2d, charge 2d, not guilty, except the words "the negroes are no more free than they were forty years ago," and attach no criminality to these words. Of specification 3, charge 3, guilty, except the words, "the said Etheridge thus attempting to incite the people of Tennessee to reinaugurate revolution and bloodshed, endeavoring to hold up to infamy the Chief Magistrate of the nation, and even insulting the revered memory of Abraham Lincoln, the late President of the United States of America." Of charge second not guilty. And the commission do acquit him, the said Emerson Etheridge. II. The proceedings of the military commission in the case of Emerson Etheridge, a citizen, are disapproved by the major general commanding for the following reasons: It appears from the record that upon the convening of the commission the judge advocate summoned such witnesses as were deemed necessary to support the prosecution, but before one-third of these witnesses were examined the following entry was ordered to be made in the record: 66 The commission then went into secret session and decided to close the case." The judge advocate presented and entered in the proceedings a protest against this summary action of the commission, upon the ground that many of the most important witnesses for the government (named in the protest) were not examined, and that he had good reasons for believing that by these witnesses he could prove material facts in the case, his knowledge of their testimony being based upon their affidavits, already in his possession. Notwithstanding the protest of the judge advocate the commission proceeded to make its findings and adjourned. This act of the commission was unauthorized and without precedent. It is the province of a court to sit in judgment and to investigate with patience and dignity the evidence brought before it, but not to reject without consideration the material testimony upon which its judgment should be based. The commission also committed a grave error in attaching no criminality to the findings upon some of the specifications of which the accused was proved guilty by the limited amount of testimony which it condescended to permit the judge advocate to introduce. The record and findings show that the accused, in time of rebellion, (or during the unsettled state of society immediately following it,) and in the midst of a notoriously disloyal assembly, denounced the President and commander of the armies of the nation as a usurper, a liar, a man meaner than Judas Iscariot, and declared also that there was no semblance of civil government in the land but usurpation, and that the laws were void and not binding, and yet the court attach no criminality to it. Thus officers of the army composing a military tribunal and holding commissions from the commander of the armies of the United States see him so defamed, his authority set at naught, his usefulness impaired, and yet find nothing in all this to condemn. The commission evidently failed to appreciate the grave nature of the case brought before it, and to manifest a due respect for the dignity and interest of the government it represented, and instead of being an instrument of justice and the guardian of the military authority it was appointed to uphold, by its arbitrary and inconsiderate action has enabled Emerson Etheridge to succeed in his attempt to do as much injury as possible to the government without subjecting him to personal harm. Although the court has failed to do justice, and the evidence and findings clearly establish the guilt of the accused, yet, as the present state of society in West Tennessee does not require that further action should be taken in this case or further restraint placed upon the accused, the court will not be reconvened for the reconsideration of its findings upon the evidence before it, and Emerson Etheridge will be immediately released from his parole and set at liberty. The military commission, of which Brevet Colonel N. A. Dudley is President, is hereby dissolved. By command of Major General Thomas, STATE OF TENNESSEE, county of Davidson, ss: WM. D. WHIPPLE, Assistant Adjutant General. Jacob J. Noah, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is a lawyer, residing in Maury county, in said State; that he is familiar with the state of public sentiment in Tennessee in reference to the act known as the "Act to limit the elective franchise," passed June 5, 1865; that the friends of this act, known as unconditional Union men, were denounced by the conservative or rebel element throughout the State; that this rebel element was openly violent and hostile to the enforcement of this law, for the reason that it operated to disfranchise them for their acts of rebellion; that it was everywhere publicly known and unconcealed that every persistent effort was to be made to have this law disregarded. The clerks of the county courts, who were the officers designated in the law to grant certificates, were pressed from every side of this rebel element to twist out of and evade the strict application of the law. Many of these county clerks favored this evasion of law, and the same was announced to the general assembly by the governor of the State in a report made by him to the said assembly, in obedience to a resolution of inquiry therefrom. In the county of Maury I saw certificates that had been given to ex-confederate soldiers, on parole and unpardoned, many of whom subsequently voted thereon. Deponent was informed, and therefore believes and states, that the county clerk construed the act limiting the elective franchise, as aforesaid, to include within it all those coufederates who had behaved themselves since their surrender, without reference to their past participancy in the rebellion. I know of one ex-confederate who was tendered, but refused to receive, one of these certificates, as he felt bound to recognize the fact that the law had disfranchised him, and he considered himself bound to obey the law. These efforts made to disregard the law were open, notorious, and persistent, and as deponent is informed, believes, and states, the same spirit is now manifest, and as open and unconcealed. Deponent did not hear the speeches of Etheridge, Campbell, and others, but saw and read reports of same in the public prints. Judging from these reports, the speeches were of an incendiary aud seditious character, and while condemned by the loyal people, were applauded by the conservative or rebel element. Deponent further states, on his information and belief, that the rebel element pronounced the law unconstitutional, and as such would not obey it. Deponent has since seen an opinion signed by Messrs. Fleming, Baxter, Brown, and Nelson, lawyers of Knoxville, wherein they hold the present law of franchise unconstitutional, and decide that the judges of election under the act were judicial officers, and as such undoubtedly had the authority to pass upon its constitutionality, and to obey or disregard it as they might deem proper. Deponent mentions this instance to show the persistent and notorious efforts made to evade and disregard this law. J. J. NOAH. Sworn to and subscribed before me, and reduced to writing in my presence, this twenty-second day of February, A. D. 1867. L. C. HOUK, Judge, &c., 17th Judicial Circuit, State of Tennessee. H. Mis. Doc. 72-4 We, W. R. Conner, T. A. Harris, John W. Hale, and Jesse Taylor, being sworn, say that we have perused the deposition of J. J. Noah made above, and that we are citizens of the State of Tennessee, loyal men, and that, upon personal knowledge, and the information and belief derived from contact and communion with the public, and a knowledge of the sentiment of the public thereupon, we corroborate the evidence given by said J. J. Noah, in reference to the attempts made by the rebel element to openly, notoriously, and persistently bring about a disregard of the franchise law of the State. We further state that we are well acquainted with said J. J. Noah, who has been one of the attorneys general of the State, and know he has had remarkable opportunities to know and be familiar with the state of public sentiment, by reason of his having filled said office of attorney general. W. R. CONNER, Commissioner of Registration for Maury County, Tennessee. T. A. HARRIS, Justice of the Peace. JOHN W. HALE, Commissioner of Registration for Lewis County. JESSE TAYLOR, Commissioner of Registration for Perry County. Sworn to and subscribed, and reduced to writing in my presence, this twentysecond day of February, A. D. 1867. L. C. HOUK, Judge, &c., 17th Judicial Circuit, State of Tennessee. STATE OF TENNESSEE, County of Davidson: James Mullins, J. A. Fuson, W. Y. Elliott and William Wines, being each for himself duly sworn, deposes and says that he was and now is a member of the house of representatives of the State of Tennessee; that he was present in the hall of the house of representatives in the capitol of said State, at Nashville, and participated in the deliberations therein had upon the franchise law and the passage of the act known as, "an act to limit the elective franchise," passed June 5, 1865; that the issue was distinctly made during the deliberations and discussions had then and there upon said act as regards the propriety of proving loyalty by the oaths of competent witnesses, or by the oaths of the persons applying for certificates without further proof; that we insisted that it would be necessary, proper and just to compel certain proposed voters to prove their right and competency to vote by evidence other than their own oaths. making proof of loyalty the test for suffrage; that the opposition party, known as copperheads, contended violently and strongly for a proposition or enactment that permitted proposed voters to the right of suffrage upon their own oaths, unsupported by any other testimony. After a severe parliamentary struggle our proposition prevailed, and the act known as the "act to limit the elective franchise," passed June 5, 1865, became the law, wherein it was required that proof of loyalty must be established by the testimony of two voters other than the applicant. The distinction between the bills, as advocat ly the Hon. Edmund Cooper and Hon. Samuel M. Arnell, (who were then both members of the house of representatives of the general assembly of the State of Tennessee,) was that Mr. Cooper desired to provide for requiring only the oath of the applicant himself, while Mr. Arnell insisted that the proof of loyalty should THOMAS VS. ARNELL. be made by competent witnesses in his behalf, and not left to the unsupported oath of the said applicant, but must be proved aliunde. JAMES MULLINS, Representative from Bedford and Rutherford. J. A. FUSON, Representative from De Kalb. Representative of Rutherford Co. Representative from Montgomery. Sworn to and subscribed before me, and reduced to writing in my presence, this twenty-first day of February, A. D. 1867. THOMAS ARNELL. N. A. PATTERSON, Judge Eighth Judicial Circuit of Tennessee. Pending before the Committtee of Privileges and Elections of the SIR: Take notice that in this case I shall take depositions at the office of the of Tennessee, in the State house at Nashville, commencing on the 21st governor instant, at 10 o'clock a. m., and to continue thereafter from day to day at the same place, if necessary, until finished. Your obedient servant, Hon. D. B. THOMAS. SAMUEL M. ARNELL. I, A. G. Riddle, being sworn, say, that I this day offered a copy of the above to Hon. Edmund Cooper, for the contestant, who refused to receive the same, and referred me to Mr. Thomas; that I called at the room of Mr. Thomas abovenamed, No. 134 Metropolitan hotel, Washington city, who was absent from his room, and I thereupon deposited said copy, with the key of his room, in his box in the office of said hotel. Subscribed and sworn to before me February 16, 1867. [SEAL.] Hon. D. B. THOMAS. A. G. RIDDLE. R. J. MEIGS, |