BALL’S BLUFF AND THE ARREST OF GENERAL STONE.

133

Lincoln’s remark, after reading the letter and patiently hearing the wholestory, while it was still hot: “ I don’t know that I should have written such aletter; but if I had wanted to, I think, under the circumstances,— under thecircumstances, mind you,—I would have had a right to do so.”,!

These circumstances, imperfectly known or understood, have causedmany to suppose that Mr. Sumner was in some way the originator of GeneralStone’s arrest; it is, however, as certain as any fact can be upon negativeevidence, that Mr. Sumner had nothing whatever to do with the subsequentproceedings.

The Committee on the Conduct of the War proceeded to investigate Ball’sBluff by the methods common to nearly all similar bodies. Witnesses weresummoned and examined without order; there was no cross-examination;the accused was not confronted with the witnesses nor told their names, northe charge upon which he had been already tried, condemned, and sentencedbefore he was even allowed to appear. No one was responsible. Of manyimportant details there was no record. The secrets of a committee may notbe divulged even to the authority from which its existence is derived. Onbehalf of the committee, the responsibility has been sought to be avoided.It cannot avail. General McClellan ’s statement is explicit, that Mr. Stantoninformed him, when ordering the arrest, that he did so “ at the solicitationof the committee.” General McClellan was one of the most truthful of men.Mr. Stanton, unfriendly as he had then become, did not deny it; but heexplicitly denied the authorship of the arrest. On the part of the com-mittee no such explicit denial was ever made. As a matter of fact, some, atleast, of its members hailed the arrest with demonstrations of delight. InApril, in the Senate , the committee vehemently opposed a resolution callingon the President for the evidence taken before the committee. The chair-man, Mr. Wade, admitted that the committee had done something, and hadsuggested something, but his language, elsewhere so violent, was guardedwhen he came to tell what this was. A sub-committee laid the evidence,which the Senate was not to be allowed to see, before the President and hiscabinet, and “ left it pretty much to them,” in Mr. Wade’s words. The reso-lution was supported by Mr. Sumner, and was passed against the oppositionof the committee. Nine days later the President declined to lay the evidencebefore the Senate in a message, which, as Mr. Blaine points out, bears marksof having been written in the War Office; but the fact that the informationwithheld consisted of the evidence taken by its own committee was notrevealed to the Senate .

Mr. Stanton’s order for Stone’s arrest was issued on the 28th of January.It was not executed until the morning of the 9th of February. 'What happenedin the interval has never been told. It is soon done. General McClellan asked that General Stone might be heard in his defense. The committeeassented, and General Stone was examined on the 31st. Meantime, the

j Adjutant-General Sohouler (“Massachusetts in the War”) says, “Mr. Sumner took no notice” ofStone’s letter. General Schouler was evidently not aware that Mr. Sumner took the letter at once toMr. Lincoln, with the above result.— R. B. I.