signature showing that at different times during those months he was in the performance of his ordinary functions as commandant of the prison. It was claimed that deaths resulting from the use of odgs in the capture of escaped prisoners were not crimes fastened upon Wirz, he not being present at the pursuit and therfore not responsible. But it appears to have been the fact that this use of dogs was under Wirz's especial direction; that the pursuit of prisoners was in many instances instituted under his immediate orders, and in some cases captures were made under his personal supervision.it was also clearly proved that a part of each pack were ferocious dogs, dangerous to life, so as to make it probable that the men on whose track they were setn would be killed. A man overtaken by these beasts and desiring to surrender could not by coming to a stand save his life. The instinct of the dogs was for human blood, and to surrender to them was death. Almost shocking illustration will be given. Two soldiers had escaped but were overtaken. The party who captured them returned with but one (who was so mangled that he died), and the chief of the party, known as Turner, exulted in accounting for the other, stating that they allowed the dogs to tear him in pieces,and left him in the woods.

As applying to the question of criminal responsibility involved in theis class of homicides, the judge- advocate refered the curt to the well- settled principle of law that it is not essential that the hand of the party should be the immediate occasion of the death, but that if it be shown that means were used likely to occasion death,a nd which did so occasion it, the party using such menas is to be held responsible for the consequences. There is but one of this class of homicides which enters into the findings of guilty under this cahrge. Adiscussion of the legal points involved is conceived to tbe needless, inasmuch as the charge is sustained by a conviction on nine other distinct alegations of murder.

As to the deaths resulting from the use of stocks and chain gangs, the defense urged tahtthe men were placed therin for the purposes of discipline; that they were commonly used for such purposes and that their use at this place was attributed to those higher in authority than Wirz, to whose orders he was subject. upon this point it is to be obeserved that prisoners were put in these instuments of torture as punishment for having escaped, or having made attempts to escape, from their captors, which attempts, whether successful or not, it was their right and duty as prisoenrs of war to make, Any punishments inflicted upon them threfor by their captors was a violation of the laws of war,a nd deaths resulting from such unlawful punishments rre murders. This would be the judgment of the law apart from some of the peculiar circumstances which surround these crimes and which so decidedly indicate their true character, prominent among which is the oft-declared animus of the prisoner, showing conclusively that in these and kindred barbarities he was deliberatly seeking to sacrifice the lives of his victims. it was shown that these stocks and chain gangs were under Wirz's immediate and direct control; that he exercised full authority in committing prisoners to duty. While it may be, and probably is, the fact that his action in this matter was sanctioned by the rebel Winder when he was on duty at that place, it does not relieve the prisoner of the responsibility of the results.

Relating to three homicides embraced in the third class, the prisoner makes no special defense except as to the killing of the man known as Chickamauga. He urges in his final statement that his order to the guard to shoot this man was only intended as a menace. it is clear,