Q. Do you know whether or not he has taken an active part, as a partisan at political meetings? A. I think he has, sir; he has been a candidate for office; he ran once for sheriff, I think, and once for chief of police. Q. Up to the time of his arrest, how was he esteemed by his neighbors, and the public, as a loyal man? A. I know Mr. Walsh mainly as a democrat; I was not as well acquainted with him as I was with Judge Morris; but I have heard no charges against Mr. Walsh at any time, nor have I heard his character called in question; I never knew even that he was a peace democrat. Q. Do you know, from reputation, whether he took any part in raising regiments for the army? A. I know he did; it was, I believe, at the beginning of the war. By ROBERT HERVEY, esq.: Q. Are you acquainted with Colonel Richard Martin? A. Yes, sir; and Colonel Martin's family were very intimate with Judge Morris. Q. Do you know of his having induced young Richard Martin to go into the federal service? A. I know he tried to persuade him to go, and he went down to Virginia, into the quartermaster's department; he advised him to go into the army as an officer. This was within the last three years. Cross-examination by the JUDGE ADVOCATE : Q. Did the republicans and the war democrats mingle freely during the last election ? A. Yes, sir. Q. From Judge Morris's reputation, was he a man that was expected to support or hinder the measures which the government adopted for its safety and protection during the war? A. He was regarded as opposed to the administration, and his sympathies were supposed to be with the South. He was a peace democrat, and he was regarded as too honorable a man ever to assist in the rebellion by any overt act; if he desired to do so, he would go south and take his position there. Q. Did he not, on further occasion, take a position of sympathy with the government? A. I cannot say that he did. Q. Was he ever called upon by the friends of the government to assist them? A. No, sir, I think not. Q. Was he not then considered to be opposed to all measures the federal government was seeking to adopt? A. I think he was not an enemy to the government, nor even to the masses of the republican party. Q. Was he then a friend to the measures of the government? A. He was an extreme partisan; he opposed the administration, I think, in every way. Q. Did not that lead him to oppose all the measures of the government? A. As a partisan, he did. Q. Did he not join the peace wing of the democratic party, which had nothing in common with the war democrats? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there not an impassable abyss between the war and the crats? A. I think not, sir; I think the war and peace democrats joined in the election of McClellan. It was so hard to form an opinion of the peace democrats that I cannot answer very definitely. Q. Was not Judge Morris wise and circumspect enough to deliberate upon the ground he was to take, before he publicly declared himself? A. He is an impulsive man, a man of intelligence. He is impulsive in design, as well as in act, and I think he is very much to be led by those who surround him. Q. Is he not a shrewd man? A. No, sir; he is a man whom shrewd sharpers would prey upon to a considerable extent. Q. Has he not accumulated considerable property in Chicago? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is he at present worth? A. From $150,000 to $200,000. Q. Do you know how much his property is encumbered? A. I know it was somewhat encumbered, to the extent of $12,000. I have understood since then that it was settled. I have understood that the Masonic Temple was encumbered to a large extent, but I do not know that the other property was; I speak only from general reputation. Q. Do you regard general reputation as a good standard to judge of a man's wealth? A. I do not, sir. Q. Did not Judge Morris elucidate his ideas? A. Yes, very pointedly and forcibly-appropriate to the subject under discussion. He is vehement in his style, but his ideas are indicative of thought. He is somewhat rambling and "bushwhacking" in his style. Re-examination by ROBERT HERVEY, esq.: Q. State whether the change in the policy of the administration, since the war commenced, has or has not had the effect of withdrawing from its support many men who were originally in favor of it. A. It has, to some extent, had that effect. Q. Many, then, who were in favor of the war for the restoration of the Union, are not in favor of the war for the abolition of slavery? A. Yes, sir; among the peace democrats. Re-cross-examination by the JUDGE ADVOCATE : Q. Are there not persons who, in consequence of that very policy, have been warmer adherents to the administration? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have not many taken this position to the policy of the administration as a cloak to conceal real treason and disloyalty? A. Yes, sir. By ROBERT HERVEY, esq.: Q. Do you mean to include Judge Morris in that category? A. No, sir. By the JUDGE ADVOCATE: Q. Have you had any conversation with him during the past year? A. Yes, sir; his position was clearly this, as I understood it, from him he regarded the national cause as supreme, within the letter of the Constitution; outside of that he stood up for State sovereignty, and I do not know that he doubted the right of the government to coerce, but that he doubted its policy, and I heard him take the position that the government had the right to coerce a State. I understood that he would be willing to accede to a separation of the States on the ground of policy. By ROBERT HERVEY, esq.: Q. Was he not willing to accede to a separation of the States rather than that the whole country should be ruined? A. Yes, sir; that was his position. Q. Is it not a matter of opinion whether those who oppose the policy of the present administration, or those who support it, are the best friends to the government and the country? A. Of course it is, for there are parties that hold both opinions; both sides think they are the best friends to the government; they use those arguments, and I have no doubt many of them honestly think so, though I don't see how they can. J. W. STICKNEY, a witness for the accused, was then introduced, and being duly sworn by the judge advocate, testified as follows: By the accused: Q. State your name, residence, and profession. A. J. W. Stickney; I am an attorney at law, residing in Chicago. Q. How long have you resided there? A. About fifteen years. Q. Are you acquainted with the accused, Judge Morris ? A. I became acquainted with him immediately on my coming to Chicago. Q. Is Judge Morris a man of considerable property in Chicago? A. By reputation, he is; I understand he is the owner of the house in which he lives; and I have heard of his having an interest in the Masonic Temple. Q. Do you know what is the judge's reputation among his neighbors as to being a man of humane and kind disposition? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is it? A. It is the reputation of an honorable, kind and good citizen; I have understood him to be a man of humane disposition; I have, on occasions, experienced it myself. Q. Are you familiar with Judge Morris's style of oratory? A. Somewhat, sir; I have heard him make speeches. Q. How would you characterize Judge Morris's style of address? A. As rather rough; some call it extravagant and hifalutin. He uses epithets and slang phrases in his speech, so that by some he is considered rough and somewhat vulgar. Q. To what political party do you belong? A. To the Union party; I was once a democrat, then a republican, and now am a Union man. Q. What was Judge Morris's reputation among his neighbors up to the time of his arrest, as a loyal citizen of the country, without regard to his peculiar views of this administration? A. I never heard it questioned, except in regard to his political views. Q. Up to the time of the judge's arrest, have you heard him suspected of being guilty of violation of any of the laws of his country? A. Politics ran high, and every man was abused for something; but outside of that, I never heard Judge Morris charged with disloyalty. Cross-examination by the JUDGE ADVOCATE : Q. Politically, you have heard his character as a loyal citizen discussed, have you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was he placed with the friends of the government or with its enemies? A. I cannot answer the question that way; he was placed with the peace party. Q. Was not the peace party placed among the enemies of the government. instead of among its friends? A. Yes, sir; they used language very much like it. Q. Have you been very intimate with Judge Morris since the war? JOHN B. RICE, a witness for the accused, was then introduced, and being duly sworn by the judge advocate, testified as follows: By the accused : Q. State your name, residence, and occupation. A. John B. Rice; I reside in Chicago, and am a commissioner of deeds and notary public. Q. How long have you resided in Chicago? A. Nearly eighteen years. Q. Are you acquainted with the accused, Judge Morris ? A. I am; I have known him intimately nearly eighteen years. Q. Do you know whether Judge Morris is a man of property in Chicago? A. There has been as much said in my hearing by Judge Goodrich, who knows much better than I; but I believe the reputation of Judge Morris was, that he had quite a large property, and that recently it was very much encumbered. I know of his owning the house on Washington street, where he lived, and the Masonic Temple, the State street property, and a large piece on the south branch of the river. Q. State if you know Judge Morris's general character among his neighbors as a man of kind heart and humane disposition. . A. He always has had the reputation of being a warm-hearted man and liberal-minded; more emotional, perhaps, than intellectual. Q. Have you had any experience of Judge Morris's peculiar style of oratory? A. No, sir; I never heard him make a speech in all my life. Q. Do you know what is his reputation in that regard among his neighbors? A. He has never been considered an orator; he is what might be called a man, in Illinois, having lived there when law was practiced in a log hut; and there was a roughness and rudeness about it, in which he indulged perhaps more than any other man in Chicago. I believe he was considered an indolent, hasty man. His hasty temper induced him to say things without reflection, and his indolence prevented his considering their tendency. Q. To what party do you belong? A. To that party that has resolved that this government shall be maintained in its integrity; to that party that believes that the majority shall always rule and govern. Q. Do you know the reputation of Judge Morris, up to the time of his arrest, as a loyal citizen of the United States, without regard to his views upon the administration? A. I cannot answer that. There has not been much report or rumor in Chicago about Judge Morris's political opinions; at least I have not heard it. There has been a feeling, throughout, on my part, perhaps not from positive knowledge, that there has been a sympathy with persons that are all the time complaining against the government, making no particular charge, but something to the effect that they could do better if they had the chance. I did not think there was on his part any determined opposition to the government of a criminal nature, but that feeling has been somewhat disturbed since his arrest. I never could have believed that he could oppose his government in a criminal manner, but my opinion, I confess, has been somewhat disturbed since his arrest. Q. Up to the time of his arrest, you say that you believed him loyal? A. Up to that time I did not believe that Judge Morris would lend himself to an open or determined opposition to the government of his country; but I have not known anything of his language or associates during the time of this war. Q. The fact of the gentleman being placed upon trial on such charges, and the evidence heard against him, would be apt to disturb your opinion, would it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Has your opinion of the judge altered? A. My opinion was first disturbed by his arrest; I always presumed the government would do what was right, and the evidence given here has served to make me pause, and ask if it could be possible. Q. That he would do an act that you previously regarded as impossible? A. I cannot say that I thought it impossible I did not think anything about it. The commission then adjourned to meet on Tuesday, March 7, 1865, at 11 o'clock a. m. COURT-ROOM, CINCINNATI, OHIO, March 7, 1865-110'CLOCK a. m. The commission met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present; also the judge advocate, the assistant counsel, the accused and their counsel. The proceedings were read and approved. W. R. Campbell, a witness for the accused, was recalled, and testified as follows: By the accused: Q. Were you at Mr. Walsh's house on the Sunday night of the arrest of the parties? A. I was. Q. Who was with you? A. R. W. Galloway, a citizen of Chicago. Q. What time in the evening did you call there? A. About half-past six o'clock. Q. Who is Mr. Galloway? A. He is a young man. Q. To what party does Mr. Galloway belong? A. He is a very strong republican, and is known to the Walsh family as a very strong republican. Q. What did you do when you called at the house? A. We knocked and were admitted at once, and were introduced to a couple of gentlemen, whose names I do not recollect, and we spent from a half to threequarters of an hour there in ordinary conversation. Q. How long did you remain ? A. I think about three-quarters of an hour in the parlor. Q. Who was present? A. Miss Mary and Miss Maggie Walsh, Mr. Joseph Lehon and Mrs. Walsh, and, I think, Willie Walsh came in the room once, but I do not think he spent much time there. Q. Did you see Mr. Walsh? A. I did not. Q. Did you go to the polls on election day with Mr. Galloway? A. No, sir; but I saw him on the morning before he went to the polls; know he did not go to the polls. Q. Did he take anything that you know of? A. He showed me a revolver, which he said he was going to take to the polls. A. I took a pair of revolvers. Q. State whether or not, from your position as private secretary to J. R. Diller, I |