He states in his "Refutation," that he "had satisfactory reasons for believing that they were not there;" but he could not have gathered those reasons from Judge Bingham or his letter, which really is only consistent with the presence of some, if not all, of the three; and it is naturally to be inferred he got them from the ex-members themselves in letters repudiating all knowledge of the petition;--letters he takes care not to publish.
Again: the Cabinet meeting described in Judge Bingham's letter cannot be made to square with the meeting described in the letter of Judge Harlan. The former was a regular Cabinet meeting, the latter was an informal discussion by a few members of the Cabinet. At the one, the petition was "duly considered," at the other, neither record nor petition was present. At the one, "a formal vote" was taken upon the "question as to Mrs. Surratt's case;" at the latter, her case "was never submitted to a formal vote."
But--not to dwell further on dispensable points--it is enough to say that _any_ Cabinet meeting whatever, for the consideration of the petition, held _before_ the President's approval of the death-sentence, is, on the admitted facts of the case, an impossibility.
Indeed Holt himself, when driven to the question, does not claim that there was. The record was in the custody of the Judge-Advocate from the 30th of June until that officer carried it to the President on the 5th of July, and during that interval the President was sick-a-bed. It was General Holt, as he himself states, who first "drew his attention to the recommendation," and "the President then and there read it in my (his) presence." And this was at the confidential interview on Wednesday, July 5th. There could have been no meeting of the President and his Cabinet at which the record and petition were present and discussed, "before the approval of the death-sentence;" which confessedly was done at the confidential interview.
When this impossibility was pointed out by Andrew Johnson, General Holt, in his "refutation," with great show of indignation, denounces such an argument as "intensely disingenuous." While conceding at once that from the adjournment of the Commission to the 5th of July, the President "had been sick in bed, and had, of course, had no opportunity of conferring with any members of his Cabinet;" he proceeds to show what his idea of intense ingenuousness is, by claiming that what "Messrs. Seward and Stanton" (of Bingham's letter) "clearly meant was, that before the President had _finally_ and _definitely_ approved the sentences in question," the recommendation to mercy "had been considered by him and his advisers in Cabinet meeting;" and therefore such a meeting might have been held _after_ the signature to the death-warrant, say on Wednesday afternoon (5th), or on Thursday, the 6th. And he, now, once again, as in the days of the Surratt trial, abandons all idea of a "full" or regular Cabinet meeting, and endeavors, with the most transparent sophistry, to identify the informal discussion of Judge Harlan's letter with the Cabinet Council of Judge Bingham. But alas! for the ingenuous General! Circumstances are too strong for him. For there is no more room for a Cabinet meeting, formal or informal, to do what Judge Bingham's informants are said to relate--_i. e._ consider, and then vote upon the petition--_after_ the confidential interview than _before_.