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.
Why, then, do we hear nothing from Judge Bingham for three years more? In the words of Holt, "after the Secretary had, amid the world's funeral pomp, gone down into his sepulchre, the truth came up out of the grave to which he had consigned it," and was "resurrected and openly announced by Judge Bingham." But why was the resurrection delayed until February, 1873? He does not tell us. Why should "the buzz of this slanderous rumor" (to use Holt's own words), "sadly recall to him that, though holding that proof, he was not yet privileged to divulge it?" There is no answer to this; none. The "scrupulosity" of Bingham did not end with the providential taking off of Stanton, but prolonged its reverential obedience to the advice of the dead, until his great colleague also was summoned from the scene.
Such resurrected truth, like the suggested letter of Speed to be used only after poor Holt's death, seems doubly obnoxious to the latter's own common sense remark: "thus strangely withheld from the public, it would not, when it appeared, be credited."
On the whole, it is exceedingly doubtful whether Judge Bingham's testimony does not do more harm than good to General Holt's case. It is the testimony of an accomplice, if the charge it is meant to refute is true. Its subject-matter is hearsay, withheld, so long as the direct evidence was attainable, for no good reason, or for a reason assigned which will not stand a moment's examination.