Trial of John W Owen

John W Owen

Trial of John W Owen for bridge-burning, destroying railroads, etc.

A military commission of which Lient. Col. Samuel A. Holmes is president convened at Wellsville, Mo., pursuant to Special Orders, No. 28, namely: SPECIAL ORDERS, HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI, No. 25. Saint Louis, January 10, 1862.

The order for the military commission to meet at Wellsville by Special Orders, No. 17, on January 8, 1562, current series from these headquarters, is hereby revoked and the following detail substituted, to meet on Monday, January 13, 1862, at 10 o’clock, or as soon thereafter as practicable, for the trial of such persons as may be brought before it: Lieut. Col. Samuel A. Holmes, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. Richard Y. Lanius, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers; Capt. A. C. Todd, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Surg. Thomas 0. Edwards, Third Iowa Volunteers; Capt. Martin Arm- strong, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers, who will act as judge-advocate and recorder.

The Commission will meet without regard to hours. By order Major-General Halleck: J. C. KELTON, Assistant Adjutant- General. SAINT Loins, January 15, 1862. Brigadier-General SCHOFIELD:

The military commission ordered to meet at Wellsville is authorized to sit at any point on the North Missouri Railroad which may be designated by Brigadier-General Schofield. H. W. HALLECK, Major- General. WARRENTON, Jannary 15, 1862. Major HEscocK: If General Halleck authorizes the commission to go to Danville telegraph to Colonel Morton. Let Mr. Gamble have the engine. .

1. M. SCHOFIELI). DANVILLE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Mo., January 28, 1862.

The commission met pursuant to adjournment and the foregoing orders. Present: Lient. Col. Samuel A. Holmes, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. Richard Y. Lanius, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers; Capt. A. C. Todd, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. M. Armstrong, judge-advocate, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers. John W Owen, the accused, also present.

The judge-advocate, having read the order convening the court asked the accused John W Owen, if he had any objection to any member named therein; to which he replied, “I have not.” The commission was then duly sworn by the judge-advocate and the judge-advocate was duly sworn by the presiding officer of the commission in the presence of the accused. The accused, John W Owen, here begged the privilege of introducinig Walter L. Lovelace, Esq., as his counsel which was granted by the commission. The charges were then read aloud by the judge-advocate, as follows:

CHARGE 1: Destroying railroad and railroad property. Spec(fication.—In this, that the said John W Owen on or about the 20th day of December, 1861, in the counties of Montgomery and Audrain in the State of Missouri and within the lines occupied by the troops of the United States did unlaw- fully, wilfully and maliciously tear up, burn and destroy the rails, railroad track, ties, bridges, depots and other buildings of the North Missouri Railroad Company (so called) contrary to the laws and customs of war in like cases.

CHARGE 2: Destroying telegraph lines. Spec~ftcatioa.—In this, that the said John W Owen on or about the 20th day of December, 1861, in the counties of Audrain and Montgoniery in the State of Mis- souri and within the lines occupied by the troops of the United States did unlaw- fully, wilfully and maliciously cut down and destroy the telegraph poles and wires of the U. S. military telegraph along th~ line of the North Missouri Railroad in the said counties of Montgomery and Audrain contrary to the laws and customs of war in like cases.

CHARGE 3: Aiding and abetting in the destruction of railroads. Specification—In this, that the said John W Owen on or about the 20th day of December, 1861, in the counties of Audrain and Montgomery in the State of Missouri and within the lines occupied by the troops of the United States did wilfully, unlawfully and maliciously meet with certain unlawful and armed bands and advised and counseled the destruction of the North Missouri Railroad track, ties, bridges, buildings and other property of the North Missouri Railroad Company, and did then and there in pursuance of such advice give aid and assistance to said persons in the destruction of said railroad contrary to the laws and customs of war in like cases.

CHARGE 4: Falsely assuming the character of a military officer. Specificatioa.—In this, that the said John W Owen on or about the 15th day of December, 1861, and for a long time thereafter in the counties of Audrain and Mont- gomery in the State of Missouri and within the lines occupied by the troops of the United States did wilfully and falsely assume and adopt the character of a military officer and did then and there falsely represent and pretend that he was duly com- missioned and qualified to act as a captain in the belligerent forces at war with the United States, and then and there in such assumed character did commit and incite others to commit acts of hostility against the United States and the property of citizens thereof contrary to the laws and customs of war in like cases. M. ARMSTRONG Captain and Judge-Advocate.

The judge-advocate then asked the accused, John W. Oweii: “You have heard the charges preferred against you; how say you, guilty or not guilty ~“ To which the accused, John W Owen, pleaded as follows:

To specification, first Charge, not guilty. To first charge, not guilty.

To specification, second charge, not guilty. To second charge, not guilty.

To specification, third charge, not guilty. To third charge, not guilty.

To specification, fourth charge, riot guilty. To fourth charge, not guilty.

The commission then proceeded in the examination of the case of John W Owen, as follows:

Col. THOMAS MORTON, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers, being prodnced, dnly sworn and examined on the part of the United States testifies as follows:

I am in the military service of the United States. I rank as colonel commanding the Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers, U. S. Army. I know the prisoner, John W Owen.

I met Mr. Owen somewhere in Callaway County about the 28th day of December, 1861. I did not see Mr. Owen at the time he was captured on the 28th of December, 1861. I learned that we had captured a man of the rebel forces, and the first time I saw Captain Owen I saw him with Major Ilescock. I know that he (Captain Owen) was placed in arrest. He was placed in the hands of one of the captains of the Tenth Missouri Regiment as a prisoner of war. I believe he was taken along that day and on the first morning after the arrest there was a complaint made to me by divers persons of the treatment of the prisoners. I relieved at this time Captain Lanius of all other duties and placed the prisoners in his charge and among them was Capt. John W Owen, and from that time on I had charge of them during the campaign. I saw the captain frequently every day during our campaign. I spoke to them as I passed during the campaign. After we had stopped the march I had opportunity to talk with the prisoners. I began an investigation of their cases. I had a conversation with Capt. John W Owen at this place (Danville). The prisoners were then in my exclusive charge. I sent for Captain Owen to come to my quarters. I had a long talk with him. In that conversation he admitted to me that he ranked as a captain, the commanding officer of twenty- seven men in the rebel service, whom he had recruited for Price’s army. He also stated that he had joined Colonel Dorsey’s command about the 26th of December, and on his return home for the purpose of procuring clothing for his men he met our forces and was arrested. He stated he was not in the fight but presumed that his men were. I think the admissions that the captain made to me were freely made. I used no force to my knowledge. They were freely made and I think substantially true. He stated to me also that he and his men were engaged in the destruction of the North Missouri Railroad. If I understood the captain right he stated to me that he and his men had charge of a separate section of the road to destroy it; that they did destroy this section and justified the act by saying, “I acted accordiing to military orders ;“ that he understood the orders were from General Price~ that lie received his orders (written) from Lieutenant Jamison, and that they came from Quartermaster Norton, who lives in Callaway County. He thinks he ranks as lieu tenant-colonel but is not positive. He stated that this written order directed him to take charge of and destroy a certain specific division he and his command were to act upon. He also stated that he and some of his men were opposed to the destruction of the railroad but that they obeyed as a military necessity. He also stated that the tools they used in the destruction of the railroad were furnished by his men. They got some from blacksmith shops. I remember about his telling Inc that he got a crowbar made to his special order split at the end, suited to draw spikes. The blacksmith who made it was a member of his company. The captain appeared free to give me all information as to what he had done.

Question. When and where did he tell you these men were raised?

Answer. I think he said he had enlisted his men about the 13th of December, 1861. He said he had enlisted some at Williamsburg, some on the borders of Hancock Prairie

. Question. Did he tell you when he had received his instructions for the destruction of the road?

Answer. He told me he had received his orders written fromu Lieutenant Jamison; that they came from Quartermaster Norton. I do not know when or where he received them. He did not tell me.

Question. Did you understand from him as to whether he raised his men before or after he received the orders for the destruction of the railroad?

Answer. I did not ask that question nor did I hear it answered. I understood from the conversation that he had raised a part of his men before he had received the orders to destroy the railroad. I will also state that he told me he had not been in the rebel service previous to this except that he had been in Jones’ command at Fulton. I asked him where they had been in the habit of having their meetings and he answered that they had had but two meetings before they started on this expedition. He did not tell where those meetings were held. He told me that he and his men met at a sugar camp near Wingfield’s Saw-Mill the night befbre they went to destroy railroad. I understood that that meeting was the same night that the railroad was destroyed. He stated to me that his orders were to destroy a specific division of the North Missouri Railroad between Wellsville and the city of Mexico. I think he stated that his division or section was the second one from Wellsville toward Mexico. I don’t think he stated whether the men were armed or not.

Question. By whom did Captain Owen say his men were sworn in’?

Answer. I do not remember the man’s name who swore thcm in. He gave the name. I took it down in writing.

Question. Did he describe to you the manner in which he and his men destroyed the railroad’?

Answer. He said that they had crowbars with forks on the end to draw the spikes; that they sprained the rails, burned the ties and tore up the culverts.

Question. Did he state to you that there were others engaged with him besides his men in the destruction of the railroad’?

Answer. I asked him if another man did not command a party operating on the railroad from Wellsville to Martinsburg. He answered that there were other per- sons engaged in the destruction of the road. His orders were to a specific division of the road. Others were above him.

Question. Did he state to you whether there was any concerted plan for the destruction of the road’? If so what did he state about it and what was it’?

Answer. He did not. I did not ask him whether he had any conversation with any others, for I was satisfied in my own mind that he had.

Cross-examination by DEFENDANT:

Question. Did not Owen state that he had enlisted his men on the 13th and received orders to tear up the railroad the Wednesday before the road was torn up, which was Friday, the 20th’?

Answer. He did not state that he enlisted his men on the 13th instant. He said they were sworn in on the 13th. It is not my recollection that he stated to me the date of his orders for the destruction of the road. He might have told me but I do not recollect.

Question. Did you understand by the expedition spoken of the tearing up of the road or what transpired since’?

Answer. I asked him where they had been in the habit of holding their meetings. He answered that they had had but two meetings previous to starting5and I inferred that he meant previous to going to join Dorsey’s command. I understood that one of those meetings was for the purpose of being sworn in and that the other for the purpose of destroying the said road.

Question. In speaking of divisions of the road did he say how long the divisions were’?

Answer. He did not. Question. Did he not state that his division should begin as near Wellsville as practicable’? Answer. It is not my recollection that there was anything said about it by him to me. Question. Did he state how he was ordered to tear up or destroy the road’? Answer. I do not think he said anything about it.

ROBERT G. MCLEAN, assistant surgeon of Eighty-first Ohio Volun- teers, being produced, duly sworn and examined on the part of the United States testifies as follows:

Question. Do you know the prisoner here present—John W Owen’?

Answer. I know him when I meet him.

Question. You recognize him as being a prisoner held here in custody’?

Answer. Yes. I know him as having represented himself as being Capt. John W Owen of the rebel service

. Question. Were you present at any time when Colonel Morton had conversation with the prisoner’?

Answer. I was present once when Colonel Morton questioned him pretty tho oughly and noted down his answers.

Question. State then what was the nature of that conversation

Answer. (The witness, here referring to the memorandum then taken for the purpose of refreshing his memory, testified as follows:) He said: “My name is John W Owen. I was arrested in Callaway County; belonged to Colonel Dorsey’s command; was captain of a company; had twenty- seven men. Joined Dorsey’s command on the 26th of December, 1861. Recruited my men in Callaway County. I was not in the fight at Mount Zion; my men were, I suppose. Our object was to go to Price’s army. I was not out previously, except in Colonel Jones’ command, of some time back (this was at the time the compromise was made between Jones and Henderson). My men were principally from Williamsburg and vicinity, and were sworn into the service on the 13th of December, 1861, on the farm of Thomas Anderson, three and a half miles south of Williamsburg, at a vacant house. I know Captain Meyers by sight. Had only two meetings of my com- pany before starting out. I am acquainted with .James Owen; he is an uncle of mine, and was a member of my company; he brought his own gun with him. I know James England; he is a reliable man, and is reported a Union man. I know Dr. John B. Gregory, and know from report he is a Union man. I know William Garrett; think he has never been in the rebel service; I think he had a son in it. Henry Hall lives east of south of Williamsburg, on hancock prairie; I do not know how he stands. I know his son-in-law, John Crawford. George MeMahon was a member of my company; Ithink hei s a son of Jesse MeMahon. I know Joseph Everheart. John Williams was in the rebel army some three months, but has returned. James Anderson’s son Watt is said to have been in Price’s army; also his grandson, Thomas Norfolk Anderson. I suppose they are in the army still. Leroy Owen, my cousin, was in my company. We got most of the tools used in destroying the railroad from members of my company, some from blacksmiths’ shops, some of them from Walker F. Field, a blacksmith, who was in my company. I was acting under military orders. My orders (written) were delivered to me by Lieutenant Jamison. They came from Quartermaster Norton. I think he lives in the western part of Callaway County, and think he ranks as lieutenant-colonel. My orders were to a specific division of the road. Lieutenant Jamison lives in the northern part of Callaway County. My orders were signed by Quartermaster Norton, by order of General Price. My company operated by itself. Myself and some of men objected to the work but obeyed as a military necessity. We met at a sugar camp near Wingfield’s Saw-Mill, seven or eight miles from the railroad.”

Question. Did Captain Owen say where he resided’? and if so where’?

Answer. I think he said he resided near Williamsburg.

Question. Did you understand him to state that he had never been in military service except his going out with Jones’?

Answer. I think that was his statement. Question. Did he state when he was out with Jones’? Answer. Not definitely. He referred to the tinie when the compromise was made between Henderson and Jones.

Question. Did he claim that that was the only time or instance in which he had taken np arms except this late affairl

Answer. I so understood him.

Question. When according to his statement did he again claim to recognize the instrnctions of a military officer l

Answer. About the 13th of December, 1861.

Question. Will you explain by what authority and in what; capacity he claimed to be acting.

Answer. By authority of General Price. Question. Did he claim to be acting by the authority of General Price in the raising of his company or in the destruction of the rail- road l

Answer. He did not state as to that. He claimed to be raising his company for Price’s army.

Question. Did he claim to have or did he produce any military com mission or authority l

Answer. Nothing written. He claimed verbally that he had the authority. Question. What I mean is did he claim to have a regular commission?

Answer. He did not claim to have a regular commission

Question. What was the particular authority through which he claimed to be acting l

Answer. As far as the destruction of the railroad was concerned he claimed to be a(’ting [under] the orders of General Price transmitted regularly through other officers to him.

Question. You say that he stated he had but two meetings of his company before starting out; starting where ~

Answer. Starting to join Price.

Question. Did he state to you the pnrpose of either of these meetings?

Answer. He did as to one of them—the meeting in the sugar camp near the saw-mill—which meeting he said he held for the purpose of adopting measures for the destruction of the North Missouri Railroad.

Question. Did he state to you what followed upon the meeting and consultation at Wingfield’s Saw-Mill~

Answer. That they proceeded to do the work assigned to them in destroying the railroad.

Question. Did he state to you how many men were engaged with him in that enterprise l

Answer. I don’t think he did definitely. Question. Did he claim to have any direction or command in the work of destroying the railroad ~

Answer. He did not say directly that he had command. He said he was averse to the work and so was some of his men. Question. Did he show or did he claim to have in his possession any written orders l Answer. Not in any way; some saying his orders were written

. Question. Did he offer to show any ~ Answer. He did not.

Question. Did lie claim that any one else had assisted him in recruiting these men’? Answer. He did not

. Question. When did he claim to have received those orders—before recruiting these men or afterward’?

Answer. He did not specify any further than having the order to destroy the rail- road. I would say in Captain Owen’s favor that he distinctly scouted the idea of having any connection with Cobb and such jayhawkers. He disclaimed any par- ticipation with them.

Question. Did he claim to have any commission or authority before proceeding to recruit these men’? Answer. He did not that I recollect of.

Cross-examination by DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY:

Question. Did he state whether he actually destroyed the road or that he only collected his men for that purpose’?

Answer. He stated that they assembled at the sugar camp near Wingfield’s Saw- Mill for the purpose of destroying the road and after they did their work dispersed.

Question. You say he did not show any written orders’? Did he not say that his papers were in his trunk and that lie had destroyed the order to burn the road’?

Answer. To the best of my recollection he did so state.

Re-examination by COMMISSION: Question. Did he state why lie had destroyed the order to. burn the railroad’?

Answer. He did not state why.

The testimony on the part of the United States is hereby closed.

Testimony on the part of the defense:

MARSHALL BOSWELL, being produced, duly sworn and examined on the part of the defense testifies as follows:

Question. Are you acquainted with the defendant—John W. Owen’?

Answer. Yes, sir; I am somewhat acquainted with him.

Question. Were you present at Thomas L. Anderson’s, at the Nine- Mile Prairie, on or about the 13th of December last’?

Answer. I was.

Question. Did you see the defendant there at that time’? Answer. I did.

Question. Will you state what you saw and heard about the defendant’s raising and mustering in a company into Price’s service on that day.

Answer. There was a company raised there by a gentleman from Price who said he was a recruiting officer. Mr. Owen then was elected captain by that company. They were sworn into the service by the same gentleman.

Question. What was the gentleman’s name’? Answer. His name was Grant. I do not know what his given name was.

Question. For what period were they sworn in’? Answer. For twelve months.

Question. Did you know whether this Mr. Grant was authorized to swear in men or by what authority he swore them in? Answer. I don’t know that I do

. Qnestion. Did you hear him state on tbat day what his authority was?

Answer. Well, his authority was from Price was all I know about—was all I heard about it.

Cross-examination on the part of the UNITED STATES:

Question. Where did you reside at the time of the meeting spoken of? Answer. In Callaway County, northeast part, in Nine-Mile Prairie Township.

Question. How far from Williamsburg? Answer. About six miles northeast from Williamsburg.

Question. How far from the place where you were sworn in? Answer. I should reckon about nine miles.

Question. How long have you resided there? Answer. About twelve or fourteen years—twelve years I reckon.

Question. Where does this prisoner reside? Answer. I believe be lives in Williamsburg when he is at home.

Question. How long has he lived there? Answer. Well, you are too hard for me now; I could not tell you how long he has lived there—six or eight months I know.

Question. When and where did you first become acquainted with him? Answer. In Williamsburg; this summer—in June or July—somewhere along there.

Question. How did you happen to become acquainted with him? Answer. I could not tell you now. I was acquainted with some of his connection and I think I became acquainted with him through them.

Question. Did you first see him in Williamsburg? Answer. Yes. Question. Had you any business then with him? Answer. No, sir.

Question. How often did you see him after that? Answer. I don’t know that I ever met him but once and that was when they took him prisoner

. Question. Where did they take him prisoner? Answer. I am not much acquainted with the place where they took him. Question. You met him then though? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Was you with him there? Answer No, sir. Question. How did you meet him then? Answer. I was with him in the ranks as a prisoner.

Question. Then those were the only times you ever saw him? Answer. , no; I saw him several times before that in Williamsburg.

Question. Then you frequently saw him in Williamsburg? Answer. Some several times. I never went to Williamsburg very often.

Question. Has he a family residing in Williamsburg? Answer. He says he has one living there.

Question. What is his business there? Answer. I think he is a wagon-maker by trade. I never saw him to work at it.

Qnestion. When did you last see him in Williamsburg? Answer. The last day I recollect of seeing him there was the day he was sworn in—oil the 13th of December.

Question. He had continued to reside there up to that time so far as you know? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. How far is the place where you were sworn in from Williamsburg? Answer. Something like three miles—at Thomas Anderson’s so said

. Question. Did you go there with him? Answer. No, sir.

Question. Who asked you to go? Answer. I went of my own accord.

Question. Anybody go with you? Answer. There were several went.

Question. Was the prisoner oiie of them? Answer. No, sir. Question. How many went with you? Answer. I suppose some four or five.

Question. Did the prisoner know you were to be there? Answer. No, sir. Question. Did you know he was to be there? Answer. No, sir. Question. Was he there when you got there? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Who else did you find there? Answer. I found Mr. John Owen, Mr. Shall, William Meyers, Bently Hays and Mr. Swerenger there. Men by the name of Grant, Hays and Shull went with me. I don’t remember the others who went with me; I know them when I see them.

Question. Did you know that the defendant was to be there when you went? Answer. No, sir.

Question. Where did you go from? Answer. From home to Williamsburg; from Williamsburg to that place.

Question. Did you see the defendant in Williamsburg that day? Answer. I saw him on that day—in the evening, an hour by sun. After we went over to this place he came before or after me I don’t know which.

Question. What was your object in going to this place? Answer. There was said to be a meeting there.

Question. What was your object in going there? Answer. I understood there was to be a meeting; that was all I know about it. I understood after I got there that they were going to raise troops; that there was a recruiting officer there; and that was the intention.

Question. You learned that after you got there? Answer. Yes. Question. Did you know there was a recruiting officer there before you went or ou the way? Answer. No, sir.

Question. How many joined there? Answer. I think some twenty or twenty-five were sworn into the company.

Question. Anything said about what you were to do? Answer. Not that I understood.

Question. Did the men have arms? All without arms? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Was anything said there about destroying the railroad? Answer. No, sir.

Question. When did you first hear about that? Answer. I never heard of it until after it was done; nothing was said about it there. They read a piece of paper there, as to what was called for; Grant read it; it called for men to go to Price; a kind of handbill. If there was any other I don’t recollect of seeing them. It was I believe Price’s proclamation. If Mr. Owen read any paper to the crowd I did not hear or see it. I saw Grant have and read a paper—they were those handbills I suppose; I saw no other.

Question. How long did you stay there? Answer. We staid there three or four hours.

Question. Where did you go to then? A~nswer. I and a good many others came back to Williamsburg and the rest went home I reckon; I don’t know where they went.

Question. Where did Owen go? Answer. I suppose he went to Williamsburg. Question. Where did you next meet? Answer. The company and I never met together any more. I don’t know of his company meeting together again. I did not enlist in it. After the meeting I next saw Owen a prisoner going up to Mexico. I did not see him after the meeting until I saw him a prisoner.

Question. Who is this Mr. Grant and where does he live? Answer. I believe he was raised in Fulton, Callaway County. I don’t know his name.

Question. Did you know him? Answer. I never saw him until that day that I know of. Question. Was he dressed in citizens’ clothes? Answer. I can’t say; I think he was dressed in citizens’ clothes.

Question. Did he live in Fulton then and [does he] now ~ Answer. He had just got back from Price the way I understood him; I was not sworn in by him.

Question. Were any sworn? Answer. All of the company, I suppose. I could not tell what the oath was. I saw Grant swearing theni; I believe it was to support the State of Missouri: I could not recollect the whole of it.

Question. What did he tell them he wanted done? Answer. He wanted them to go to Price.

Question. Did they go? Answer. I don’t know whether they did or not.

Question. Did you hear of their meeting together again? Answer. I don’t know that I ever did; I don’t know that some of them were engaged in destroying the railroad. I heard Bently Hays say he was in it himself.

Question. Did you ever hear Owen speak about it? Answer. If I have I don’t recollect it. Before the railroad was destroyed I never heard it whispered; never heard of any orders until after it was burned.

Question. Did you ever hear of Mr. Owen claiming to be captain until after that meeting? Answer. No, sir. He was living in Williamsburg up to that time.

Question. Has he ever been out to join Price? Answer. I don’t suppose he has.

Question. Did he then claim to have any commission? Answer. Not that I know of, sir, more than that he was elected captain; that was all the commission I knew of

Question. Did Mr. Grant show any commission? Answer. He did not show any to me or read any in my presence.

Question. Where were you the night the road was torn up? Answer. I was at home.

Question. Were you enlisted in any company? Answer. Yes, sir. Question. Whose? Answer. Captain Meyers’. Question. Where did you enlist? Answer. At the same place I have been speaking of—Thomas Anderson’s.

Question. This same night? Answer. This same day.

Question. Where did you go to from there? Answer. To George Harvey’s, west of here about seven or eight miles and five or six miles north of Williamsburg. I left there then. I don’t know how long they staid; I went home. Did not hear them say about going to destroy the railroad.

Question. Where did you next join them? Answer. I was with them in the company a little while on the road from Coyle’s Store to Todd’s Mill in Callaway County, on the Clarksville road southwest of the railroad and eight or nine miles from the town of Wellsville.

Question. When was it? Answer. Five or six days after I joined and late in the evening hefore the road was torn up; it had not then been torn up. I was with them but a very few miuntes; I was on my way home; I went home that night. They did not tell me what they were going to d~.

Question. Did you join them again? Answer. Yes; the evening before we came down here.

Question. Where were you taken prisoner? Answer. Some three or four miles below here; Meyers’ eompany outran me.

The commission here adjourned to meet at Danville Wednesday, January 29, 1862.

DANVILLE, January 29, 1862. The military commission met pursnant to adjournment. Present: Lieut. Col. Samuel A. Holmes, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. Richard Y. Lanius, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers; Capt. A. C. Todd, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. M. Armstrong, judge-advocate, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers. John W. Owen, the accused, also present.

Whereupon said commission proceeded in the further examination of the case of the said John W. Owen as follows: BENTLY HAYS, a citizen of Callaway County, being produced, duly sworn and examined on the part of the defense testified as follows:

By PRISONER’S COUNSEL:

Question. Are you acquainted with the prisoner? Answer. I am not very well acquaiated with him. I never saw him but once beibre I was brought here a prisoner.

Question. Where was he at that time? Answer. He was about five miles the other side of Williamsburg at a house.

Question. Who was said to be the owner of the house? Answer. I do not recollect the name of the owner.

Question. Would you recognize the name if you were to hear it? Answer. I (l don’t know, sir, whether I would or not; I don’t know that I ever heard the name before.

Question. Was it Thomas Anderson? Answer. It appears to me that it was some such name as that but I could not swear that it is the name.

Question. Jn what direction from Williamsburg was this house? Answer. I think it was rather a southwest direction.

Question. State what took place there in relation to mustering troops into Price’s service. Answer. There were men met there on that day for the purpose of being sworn in to fight for Price. I know there were several sworn in.

Question. Was Captain Owen among the number sworn in? Answer. Yes, sir; I think he was.

Question. Did any company organize on that day by electing officers, Answer. Yes, sir; there was.

Question. Well, state who they elected as officers. Answer. The company that was sworn in for twelve months—the company in which Owen was sworn—elected Mr. Owen as captain. I don’t recollect the others elected. 27 R R—SER II, VOL I

Question. Who swore this company in? Answer. I do not know.

Cross-examination by the COURT: Question. Where do you live when at home? Answer. I live in Callaway County about seven miles rather northeast of Williamsburg.

Question. How long have you lived there? Answer. I was born there and have lived there almost ever since. I am a farmer.

Question. Where does Mr. Owen live? Answer. I don’t know where he lives. I never was at his house; never heard any person say where he lived. I never saw him that I know of before I met him at this house and bave never seen him since except as a prisoner.

Question. What time of day did you meet at this house? Answer. I judge about 12 o’clock. The house was a vacant house; I saw no other houses in the neighborhood.

Question. How came you to go there? Answer. I went out there to be sworn in. Question. How came you to go to that particular place? Answer. I started to the Burg and when I got there I heard that the meeting was at that house. I had heard before that there was to be a meeting at the Burg and when I got there I was told that the meeting was to be at that house. Mr. Shull told me first that there was going to be a meeting at the Burg. He told me that they were going to get meii to go out to fight for Price and asked me if I would go. I think it was the 13th that I went and he told me of the meeting the day before. Shull lives this side and to the right of the Burg about a mile. We were at a hog-killing at the time. He was at that house on that day, the 13th.

Question. Did you go from Williamsburg alone? Answer. No, sir. I judge there were ten or twelve went with me—Mr. Schull, Swerenger, Benjamin Gee; these are all I can recollect—the first are residents of my neighborhood, the others were from and about Williamsburg

. Question. When you got to the house who did you find there and what was done? Answer. There were not many men that I was acquainted with there. There was right smart of men; I think between 50 and 100. Captain Meyers made a speech; there was another made a speech. It was not Grant. Captain Meyers swore us in. There was not anything said about destroying railroads that I heard. I did not hear about the destruction of the railroad until we started to destroy it. There was I believe a proclamation read there from Price; I heard no other papers read.

Question. Where does Meyers live? Answer. I think he lives down in some of these lower counties. Never saw him before this winter that I know of.

Question. How long did you stay at that house? Answer. About two hours. A few came after I got there. I judge they lived close around the house; I don’t know where.

Question. Did the men sign their names to any paper? Answer. I did not see any sign nor did I see anybody take down names. I judge they ought or they would not know who was sworn in. We stood up in single line when we were sworn. I don’t recollect the oath we had to take. Mr. Meyers swore in the company that joined for six months. I don’t know who swore in the other; none of the men there on the ground. There was no one there with military uniform on. The men had no arms.

Question. Did the men separate or go away in bodies? Answer. The men separated and went home when I did. The meeting broke up and went off in small parties. I don’t know whether Owen staid till they broke up.

Question. When did you next see Owen? Answer. Not till he was taken prisoner. Question. Where did you next meet with your company? Answer. In Mr. Laile’s pasture, five or six miles from Wellsville and northeast from Williamsburg. Question. Who told you to go there? Answer. Mr. Meyers told me the same night we enlisted at a dance at George Har- vey’s, close to where I live.

Question. When was it you met at Laile’s? Answer. The day before the railroad was torn up. I saw him the next day after I was sworn in at a sale at Mr. Sigler’s~ next saw him at Laile’s pasture; those were the only times. He did not tell me lie was going to tear up the railroad when at Sigler’s. We never had any meeting of the company until we met at Laile’s. I did not know that we were going to tear up the railroad until we got to a brick-kiln near Wingfield’s about five miles from the railroad.

Question. Did you hear of Captain Owen’s company after you were sworn in? Answer. I did not; don’t know whether they had any meetings. Question. When you were sworn in was there any place appointed for you to meet again? Answer. There was not.

Question. When did your company commence tearing up the road? Answer. At the section-house between Montgomery and Wellsville, about four miles east of there. I guess there were about twenty-five men. We worked toward Wellsville, burnt up part of the ties and broke part of the rails and burned the depot at Wellsville. We staid two hours at Wellsville.

Question. Where did you go then? Answer. A part came to Montgomery City and went home and a part went home from Wellsville. They went home just as soon as they pleased after the work was done—part of them did. Meyers ordered his men to go to Montgomery City and a part went; I did. When they got to Montgomery City they dispersed. They got together since that at the same house in Laile’s pasture, since the day before Christmas. From there they went to Williamsburg—about sixty men. Went from there to Danville, then back to Williamsburg. I did not see Captain Owen or his company at either of these places. Cobb’s company was here when we got here. I don’t know where Owen’s company was. From Williamsburg went to Mount Zion Church. I don’t know of Owen’s company being at Mount Zion Church and did not hear of their being there. My company broke up after the Mount Zion fight.

Question. Were there any men helping you at Weilsyille beside your company? Answer. Yes, sir; I think there was but I don’t know their names.

Question. People who had gathered in? Answer. Yes, I judge so; gathered from around about Laile’s. Laile’s son was at Wellsville. There being no other witnesses present the defendant by permis- sion of the commission prayed that the case be continued to enable him to procure the attendance of absent witnesses and in support of his application filed his written affidavit (marked Exhibit A), which is herewith returned. The court having maturely considered the said application and said affidavit refuses the same. The farther hearing of this case is adjourned to February 1, 1862, at 9 a. m.

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Lieut. Col. Samuel A. Holmes, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. Richard Y. Lanius, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers; Capt. A. C. Todd, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. M. Armstrong, judge-advo- cate, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers. The accused, John W. Owen, also present.

The counsel for the defendant here asked the court to receive in evidence the published letter of General Price to Geiieral Halleck as to the fact of his (Price) issuing the order for the destruction of the rail- road, praying also that the commission would take official notice of the reply of General Halleck. The court consented to take notice of said correspondence, a printed copy of which is attached to the proceedings.* Hereupon the commission adjourned the further hearing of the case until Tuesday, February 4, 1862.

DANVILLE, Mo., February 4, 1862. The commission met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Lieut. Col. Samuel A. Holmes, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. Richard Y. Lanius, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers; Capt. A. C. Todd, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. Martin Armstrong, Eighty- first Ohio Volunteers, judge-advocate. The accused also present. This case was here adjourned until February 5, 1862.

DANVILLE, Mo., February 5, 1862. The commission met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Lieut. Col. Samuel A. Holmes, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. Richard V. Lanins, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers; Capt. A. C. Todd, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. M. Armstrong, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers, judge-advocate. The accused also present. The testimony in this case was here closed and the counsel for the defense asked time to file the written statement of the accused. The commission granted him until Friday, February 7, 1862, 9 a. in., whereupon said case of Owen was continued until February 7, 1862, 9 a. in.

DANVILLE, Mo., February 7, 1862. The commission met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Lient. Col. Samuel A. Holmes, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. Richard Y. Lanius, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers; Capt. A. C. Todd, Tenth Missouri Volunteers; Capt. M. Armstrong, Eighty-first Ohio Volunteers, judge-advocate. The accused, John W. Owen, also present. The statement of the prisoner was read by his counsel and is hereto annexed and made a part of these proceedings, marked Exhibit B. ~ Not found attached to proceedings, but see

The case is here submitted to the court. The proceedings were read over and the statements of the parties being thus in possession of the commission the court was cleared for deliberation and having maturely considered the evidence adduced find the accused, John W. Owen, as follows:

Of specification, charge 1, guilty. Of charge 1, guilty.

Of specification, charge 2, guilty. Of charge 2, guilty.

Of specification, charge 3, guilty. Of charge 3, guilty.

Of specification, charge 4, guilty. Of charge 4, guilty.

The commission do therefore sentence the said John W. Owen to be shot to death at such time and place as the commanding geiieral shall appoint.

The above is a true and complete record of the proceedings, finding and sentence of the military commission in the case of John W. Owen. SAMUEL A. HOLMES, Lieutenant- Colonel and President of Commission. M. ARMSTRONG, Captain, Judge-A d’cocate and Recorder Military Commission. Finding approved.

The sentence awarded will be carried into effect at a time and place to be hereafter designated by the general commanding the department. In the meantime the prisoner will be kept in close confinement in the military prison at Alton. H. W. HALLECK, Major- General.

Exibit A. STATE OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY:

John W. Owen says upon oath that he cannot safely proceed to trial for want of material evidence; that he can prove by Norton who is an officer in Price’s army that an order was regularly sent to this depart- ment by his superior officers requiring him to destroy a certain portion of the North Missouri Railroad; that he can [prove] the same thing by Lieutenant] Jamison who is also an officer in Price’s army; that he believes said facts to be material to the issue and that he cannot prove them by any witness now present, and he believes if a reasonable time is allowed he can procure the attendance of said witnesses. He further states that lie can prove by Maj. Henry Hescock, of the U. S. Army, that after the arrest of defendant and before he made any confession that Major Hescock in whose charge he then was told defendant that lie ought to make a clean breast of it and tell everything and it would be better for him; that he would be better treated arid fare better in every way; and under the influence of said promises his confessions were made; that he believes the evidence of Major flescock can be pro- cured in a reasonable time. JOHN W. OWEN. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of January, 1862. SAMUEL A. HOLMES, President of Military Commission.

In cases of this kind where the life of the prisoner is being adjudicated before a court it is but reasonable that all the mitigating circum- stances in the case should be brought to bear iu his favor, and that justice, even though it should demand extreme penalties, should be administered in mercy, and for this purpose the law has provided many safeguards and gives the prisoner the advantage of all doubts that may arise in the evidence; and in this case if the evidence is examined with due regard to the cautions and safegtiards of the law it will be found that if the prisoner is not exculpated from blame, he at least ought not to be convicted of the charges preferred against him. There are four specific charges with appropriate specifications under each charge made against the prisoner.

Charge No. 3, however, of this series is clearly included in charges Nos. 1 and 2, upon the principle that the greater includes the less, and there is little danger of any con- fusion in these charges, for the plain reason that the only evidence relied on is intended to provethe main fact contained in charge and specification No. 1, to wit, “destroying railroad and railroad property,” and this evidence of such character that it forbids the idea of “aiding and abet- ting in the destruction of ~ &c. And again, with regard to charge No. 2 and specification there is no evidence at all, so that it will be unnecessary to pursue the investigation iii that direction. And with regard to charge No. 4, I imagine that the court are fully satisfied that the prisoner has as good right to the title which he assumed, to wit, that of captain, as any man in Price’s army. The character of a military officer in a belligerent force at war with the Government could be of no injury to the Government, except so far as he might impose upon the enemies of the Government, and under the pretence of being an officer induce them to do acts hostile to the Governmeiit which they might other- wise not do. But this could not happen in this case, for the only persons he claimed to command were such as had elected him to the position he occupied; and they above all others knew the extent of his authority over them. It may be true as charged that he was not duly commissioned, but that is also true of a great many officers in all armies, especially when these armies are composed of volunteer forces. The companies once organized and their officers elected they seldom wait for these officers to receive their commissions before they go into actual service, and these misguided youths iii North Missouri, whose zeal gets the better of their judgment in matters of the most vital impor- tance pertaining to their country, their friends and themselves, are hardly the men from whom we could expect patient waiting for the mere formula of a commission, when they suppose they are otherwise ready. Theii if any person claiming to be an officer in the rebel army by virtue of a commission from Price or Jackson has the right to insist upon being treated as a prisoner of war I can see no reason why this defendant may not claim the same privilege. Whatever title he may have assumed that title was well understood among those he attempted to control, and they were the only ones it could influence. ~ofar then as the fourth charge and specification is concerned, I shall dismiss it without further comment, tin sting the evidence adduced to vindicate the prisoner in the pitiful rights he may be entitled to by virtue of a negation of that charge. There now remains but one charge and the specifications under it to be disposed of. I say but one, for the second charge has no evidence whatever in snpport of it; no part of the evidence in this case relating to the destruction of telegraph or telegraph wires. The oniy remaining issue then to which I wish to direct the attention of the conrt is that contained in charge No. 1 and the specification under it.

This charge and specification is as follows: Destroying railroads and railroad property. Specification: In this, that the said John W. Owen on or about the 20th day of December, A. D. 1861, in the counties of Audrain and Montgomery in the State of Missouri and within the lines occupied by the troops of the United States did unlawfully, wilfully and maliciously tear up, burn and destroy the rails, ties, track and bridges, depots and other buildings of the North Missouri Railroad (so-called) contrary to the laws and customs of war, &c. In support of this charge the only evidence introduced has been the defendant’s own admission; aiid regarding these confessions as being properly before the Court (about which, however, there is some doubt) it becomes a question how much they of themselves can prove, or in other words whether a conviction can be founded npon bare confes- sions without any other corroborating proof. While at first blnsh it would appear that no sane man would make a confession convicting or tending to convict himself of high crimes or misdemeasiors neverthe- less the experience of ages has shown that confessions even when voluntarily made must be received with great caution, and this is especially the case on trials for capital offenses.

Greenleaf in his Treatise on Evidence (Vol. 1, Sec. 217), says: Whether extra judicial confessions uncorroborated by other proof of the corpus delicti are of themselves sufficient to found a conviction of the prisoner has been greatly doubted. Again, same section, the author says: In the United States the prisoner’s confession when the corpus delicti is not other- wise proved has been held insufficient for his conviction. And the same author continues: And this opinion certainly best accords with the humanity of the criminal code and with the great degree of caution applied in receiving and weighing the evidence of confession in other cases and it seems countenanced by approved writers on this branch of the law. The authority here seems clear that not only the corpus delicti onght to be proven but that the confession ought also to be corroborated by other evidence. Wharton, in his American Criminal Law (p. 313), says: A free and voluntary confession by a person accused of an offense whether made before his apprehension or after; whether on a judicial examination or after commit- ment; whether reduced to writing or not; in short any voluntary confession made by a defendant to any person at any time or place, is strong evidence against him, and if satisfactorily proved when there is proof of the corpus delicti sufficient to convict according to English rule without any corroborating circumstances. But in this country in particular there is a growing unwillingness to rest convictions on confessions alone. Again, De Hart’s Military Law, p. 382: Confessions ought always to be received with caution, and a voluntary confession made by a person who has committed an offense is evidenceagainst him upon which he may be convicted although the confession is totally uncorroborated by other evi- dence, provided the corpus delicti—that is this act constituting the crime—be proved. Many other authorities might be produced on this point but what have been cited seem sufficient to my mind to establish the law beyond cavil that the corpus delicti must be proven before a conviction can be had upon mere confessions. And all the authorities that I have exam- ined with one exception agree with singular unanimity that the con- fession itself must be corroborated by other evidence before a convic- tion can be had. That exception is De flart’s Military Law, and that anthorityis clear that the corpus delicti must be proven by other evidence than the bare confession of the prisoner. Now what is the evidence upon which it is sought to convict this prisoner~ It is deposed by two wit- nesses, Colonel Morton and Doctor McClain [McLean], and relates to the same conversation with the prisoner had in the preseiice of the two wit- nesses. Jn that conversation it seems that the prisoner confessed that he had raised a company of men o~ troops for Price’s army, and that atter he had raised this company and mustered them into Price’s serv- ice he received orders to destroy a certain portion of the North Mis- souri Railroad, namely, a section of that road commencing above Wells- ville and running in the direction of Mexico. The crime then sought to be proven in this case is the destruction of that specific portion of the North Missouri Railroad; for surely if his confession could not be relied on as to the specific portion of the road destroyed it would hardly be sufflcieiit to found a conviction npon. Then according to all authorities it mnst be proven that that specific portion of the railroad was destroyed by other evidences than the mere confession of the prisoner before a conviction can be had. Instead of proving that this specific portion of the road has been destroyed, however, it was not even attempted to be proven that any portion whatever had been destroyed. Now if the railroad has not been destroyed surely this prisoner ought not to be convicted; and he ongbt not to be convicted unless that specific portion mentioned in his confession was destroyed. But that is a fact that ought to be proven affirmatively before the court, and by all the authorities it ought to be provei~ by evidence other than the prisoner’s own confes- sions. It may l)e contended that the destruction of the railroad has become a part of the history of the country. Suppose it is; is this a fact that can be proven by history? But facts of such recent occur- rence can hardly be called history—at most it can only be a matter of common fame; and certainly it will not be contended that facts con- stituting the very gist of an offense—an offense, too, for which men’s lives are jeopardized—can be proved by common fame. Facts that the law permits to be proven by common fame are generally such as can be proven in no other way, and that is the only reason for per- mitting them to be proven in that way. But even if it could be proven in that way that the railroad was destroyed the case would not be bettered any, for no witness has testified that there is such a rumor; and if such evidence was before the court it would have to be confined to the specific portion mentioned in the confession, for the destruction of that portion and no other constitutes the body of this offense. But it may be argued that there was no inducement in this case why the con- fessions of the defendant against his interest should not be regarded as strictly true; that men are not likely to make confessions, especially in a case so vital as this, unless the facts confessed to were strictly true; in short that his confession could only be prompted by a love of truth. But these arguments would apply with equal force in every case of confession. Indeed we could hardly conceive of a sane man desiring to have himself convicted of a crime of which he is not guilty. The general rule is that the guilty attempt to avoid punishment, not the innocent seek it; yet this rule is not without exceptions and on account of these exceptions the law has provided inflexible rules to govern judicial tribunals in determining what weight should be given to con-fessions. And the rule is not the less inflexible because in a strict adherence to it the guilty will sometimes escape punishment. The law is merciful and prefrrs that ninety-nine guilty persons should go un- punished rather than one innocent person should suffer; and lie is led to infer from the clemency you have shown the prisoner and the courtesy you have extended to the counsel during the progress of this trial you will grant the prisoner all the leniency the law gives him any reason to expect. He knows that you cannot help but appreciate the conditiou of the prisoner at this bar. He is arraigned before you with very little better than no counsel at all. The practice in military courts is so new to his counsel that he feels conscious that he has not beeii able to render the prisoner that assistance which he had reason to expect. But he has cause to thank you for the open and frank manner in which you have advised both the counsel and the prisoner of their rights. But we were discussing the reliability of confessions and how fhr they ought to be received in evidence against the accused. It seems to be a safe rule if there was any inducement whatever the prisoner ought not to be convicted on confessions. In this case while no direct promise of reward or fear of punishment was held out to the prisoner nevertheless the circumstances by which he was surrounded might be well calculated to induce him to believe a seeming open confession would be decidedly to his advantage. He is unused to the laws and customs of war. He fitlls into the hands of an enemy whose exact purpose with him is unknown. He was not advised of the penalty attached to the act of which lie confesses him- self guilty. He looks upon it as a mere act of hostility against the Government that at worst could only place him among its enemies, to be treated as a prisoner of war. He believed that if he cenfessed to all they wished to prove against him he would place himself before them as an open, frank man and thereby elicit their sympathy and secure better treatment. These inducements to a man whose hopes of success had been entirely blasted would certainly act with telling effect. Wharton, in his American Criminal Law, relates several instances of confessions where the inducements were not stronger than in this case. In one case (p. 314) “a Frenchman named Hubert was convicted and executed on a most circumstantial confession of his guilt in having occasioned the great fire in London, although,” adds the his- torian, “iieither the judges nor any one present believed him guilty but that he was a poor, distracted wretch weary of life and who chose to part with it in that way.” And again on the same page is related an instance of a countryman who was convicted on his own confession of the murder of a widow who two years afterward returned to her home and had never received any injury whatever.

So Bunyan tells us: Since you are entered upon stories I also will tell you one, which though I heard it not with my own ears yet my author I dare believe. It is concerning one old Tod, who was hanged about twenty years ago or more at Hartford for being a thief. The story is this: At a summer assize holden at Hartford while the judge was sitting upon the bench comes this old Tod into the court clothed in a green suit, with his leather girdle in his hand, his bosom open and all in a dung sweat as if he had run for his life; and being come in he spake aloud: “My Lord,” said he, “I have been the veriest rogue that breathes upon the face of the earth; I have been a thief from a child. Xvhen I was a little one I gave myself to rob orchards and to do other such like wicked things and I have continued a thief ever since. My Lord, there has not been a robbery committed this many years within so many miles of this place but I have either been at it or privy to it.” The judge thought the fellow was mad; but after sonie conference with some of the justices they agreed to indict him, and so they did of several felonies; to all of which he heartily confessed guilty and so was hanged with his wife at the same time.

Another instance is told of two brothers named Booms who on being charged with the murder of another were convicted and sentenced to death chiefly on their own admissions, but were fortunately relieved from execution by the reappearance of their alleged victim. To the same effect is a case in Illinois in 1841 where three brothers named Trailor were arrested on a charge of murdering a man named Fisher, who when last seen had been iii their company. Strong circumstan- tial evidence was produced showing the traces of a death struggle on the spot where the homicide was alleged to have been committed and the case was fortified by expressions alleged to have been subsequently used by one of the brothers as to his having become legatee of the de- ceaseWs property. The examinations had scarcely finished before one of the three defendants made a confession detailing circumstantially the whole transaction showing the previous combination and ending with a direct statement under oath of the homicide. To the amazement of the whole country, however, the deceased made his appearance in just time enough to intercept a conviction. Many other examples of similar confessions might be adduced but these are deemed sufficient to show the danger of convicting upon con- fessions alone. There may frequently be inducements for making a confession that are never brought before the court. There are fre- quently circumstances surrounding a person that he himself could not explain and yet would go far toward influencing his conduct and pro- ducing confessions as to crimes of which he is really innocent. This may especially be expected when the prisoner is ignorant as in this case of the penalty attached to the crime confessed. Upon considera- tions of this kind the wise maxims of the law are founded—that convic- tions ought not to be had upon coiifessions alone; that the confession ought to be corroborated; and the corpus delicti must always be proven. Here, however, neither is done, but the case rests solely upon the con- fessions of the prisoner, uncorroborated and without any proof of the corpus delicti. Isn’t it then safe to follow the beaten paths of juris- prudence although occassioiially the guilty may go unpunished? Should we attempt to tread anew the ground where so many of our predecessors have blundered? Should we again attempt to open up the by-ways of past jurisprudence already so deeply stained with the blood of innocent victims? The prisoner trusts that you will not. He believes to call your attention to such a course is sufficient to guard you against it. There is one other point in this case to which the prisoner wishes to call your attention: Going upon the hypothesis that the crime was com- mitted as confessed still he wishes you to bear in mind that the same confession shows him as acting under the orders of superior officers. He has never denied that he was regularly sworn into the service of the Missouri State Guard and that he held the position of captain of a company in that service. It is in proof before this court that General Price ordered the destruction of that road. If then he is found to be guilty thus of the crime alleged he wishes you to rembeinber that he was obeying a military order. You are military men; you know how far such orders are binding. On this point then it will be unneces- sary to argue the law or the fact. About the fhct of such an order having emanated. from Price and regularly transmitted through his inferior officers he. imagines you can have no doubt. How far those regularly sworn into his service are bound to obey such an order has already been argued before this court, and the prisoner deems it unnecessary to say more on that subject.

The prisoner has now given yon all the points of defense he has in this case. He trusts you will take them and weigh them carefully and give to him that justice which he may expect from his fellowmau in so fearful a crisis. JOHN W. OWEN.

I don't know if the sentence was carried out or not.