General Holt, in 1883, on affirming in the text of his article that "Messrs. Seward and Stanton declared the truth to Judge Bingham," adds the following explanatory note: "This praise was certainly due to Mr. Seward, but not, in strictness, to Mr. Stanton, since on making the communication to Judge Bingham, he endeavored and successfully, to prevent him from giving it publicity. "The fear of Andrew Johnson's resentment, added to a determination on his part to leave my reputation--then under fire from his silence--to its fate, sufficiently explain his otherwise inexplicable conduct." But does it? Is this in truth a sufficient explanation? Stanton, the stern War Minister, fear the resentment of Andrew Johnson! When was he taken with it? When he bearded the President in his Cabinet? When he defied him in the War Department, and scattered his missive of removal to the winds? Or did he wait to begin to fear him until the President retired to private life, just escaping conviction by impeachment, and shorn of all popularity North or South? The preposterous nature of the cause assigned casts suspicion upon the assignor himself. As to the second cause, we are at a loss to conceive why Mr. Stanton should harbor such motiveless malignity against the reputation of his former colleague, then his pliant subordinate, and always his friend. We need, in this regard, an explanation of the explanation. If it be true, it settles the character of Stanton for all time. But, it appears, in the words of General Holt, that "while he (Stanton) lived, this enforced silence was scrupulously obeyed." Again we ask why? Why should Bingham have obeyed the "advice," even if given by Stanton so long before? Why should the associate of Holt, in the prosecution and execution of Mrs. Surratt, have ministered to the malignity of Stanton, scrupulously obeyed his base injunction, and never even told his beloved fellow-laborer on the field of courts-martial, that he possessed such secret sacred testimonials in his favor? The General gives us no explanation of this "inexplicable conduct." Surely, the undaunted Bingham--who, as manager on the impeachment trial, so clawed the character of the arraigned President, could have had no "fear of the resentment of Andrew Johnson." And, unless the masterful Stanton held some secret back to feather his "advice," or lend weight to his injunction of silence, we see no reason why the fear of Stanton should have closed the lips of the voluble Special Judge-Advocate. He surely could not have joined in the fine irony of the Secretary, that it would be better for their mutual friend, although "under fire," "to rely on the judgment of the people." But another, and a final, explanation is necessary. The Great War Minister died in December, 1869. Holt more than hints that "Providence" shortened his life so that he should no longer "perpetrate so pitiless an outrage" as keeping Bingham's mouth shut.