Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 25, Number 27, Indianapolis, Marion County, 16 February 1876 — Page 1

UK

Nasa. 'V ir' III til III III fell III i f K 1 !

wrsiij I Ii Ii Iii Ii i mi it mi a n

INDIANAPOLIS. WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 1G 1876 WHOLE NUMBER. 1.839 vol. xxv-sra 27;

TIIE PRESIDENTIAL TET,

PROCEEDINGS OF THE OUTION. PROSETELLING TESTIMONY HIM. AGAINST Two Envelopes Told of Addressed to Babcock and Avery, and two $500 bills. TESTIMONY OF THE TELEGRAPH, A lot of Evidence Presented Showing Baboock'e Interference with the Affairs of the Revenue Department. THE CUETAIN RISES. JtVGOCK. APPEARS 'TOR TRIAL HE PLEAD NOT GUILTY TBK SHOW POSTPONED ONE DAT. St. Louis, Fx. 7. General O. E. Babcock appeared in the United Bta'e Circuit Court this mora trig to answer to the Indictment charging him with comf liclty fci the whisky frauds. He was attended y Jadge J oh n K.Porter, of New York; Emory A. torrs, of Chicago; exITnlted States Attorney Genertl Williams; Judge John St. and Chester H. Kran, el Louis, .9 eacnssl. District Attorney, n. P-Lver. and the special counsel, James O. Hrondhead and Major Luciea Katon. aptveared for Ua aovernmen'.. Jl was Gen ial Sabcock's llrst appearance In tbe court since tila indictment, and tha tnrtnKt-w of rjleadlnE Hot KUiltV VM eone fcirongb with. The Jurors retraining on the old panel, and thoe specially wmrnonedor this eate, wre called over, but only Jialf of them responded, having been selected from outside or Hi. .Louts county, and some of them not having had time to Arrive. Mr.i torrs stated that the counsel for the defense: very mu-.-n needed an ther day forcemultatlon, ' ana also to await me arrival oi very lraporiaui documentary evidence. The eaansel for the government made uoobjecllon to the delay, and after a brief consideration, Judge Dillon announced that the case would go over until tomorrow morning, but that at i v. M the Jurors would Derailed again, that ltmtghtbe seen who were present. The pressure on toe court room was relieved by a strong force of police. Bevond the coauel, the Jurors, the witnesses and the members of the press, very lew were admitted even to the second Jioor of lhe governtient building. X crowd of -several haadred, however, were collected ou the outside. othlcg was done at the afte noon session of the court,, except to call the Jutors. Twenty-sevea responded aud twoor Ihre others will xaobablr be present to-riorrow. 11. C. Köders, deputy commissioner of the Internal revenue, General Utlfllian, chief e the treasury department, aud Coocuel W. H. Parker, collector or the internal revenue at Leaver, Col., arrived here toviy, and H. J. Varyn, chief of the revenae agftatx, and ex Commissioner Douglas are expected to-morrow. Ail are sum moBM as witnesses for the government in the Laucoei-cae. TUE COURr GETS UNDER WAY. SELECTION OF A JURY CPES1KO CF THZ PROSECUTION WITH EisSLS CALLED FIOHlg OVER THE TESTIMONY. fiT. Louis, Feb. S. -The United Stiles Circuit Court opened promptly at 1.. 'clock this morning, And without any delay the selectlonofa Jury In the Babcock case was proceeded with. Tie Jurors were examined very briefly by the prosecution. The defense made no examluatlon whatever of most of the jurors, but three or four were put through a rigid inquiry. Jam?i Millou, of Marlon couDty, was excused lor came, baving admitted that the finding o! an lndtciment against a party 'eft a bad impression on his mind, which wou d probably require proof to remove. Boib sides exhausted an of tbetr peremptory challenge, three each, and tha Jury was Anally swern la at 11:45, composed of t fee following: R. N. B ackwood, Lewis county: Matt. Woodruff, Clara county ; W. K. Wilson, Lewis county; Ezra Johnson, Lewis county; B. F. bnyder, Knox county; J. M. Keaihly, tit. Charles countv; Edward B. F. May, Franklin county; W. Biakely, Adair couaty; D. W. Tain tor, Gasconada county; Wm. B. Jewett, Jefferson county? W.T. Jackson, Marion county; Harvey Lesso-s, Iewls connly. The district attorney announced that no more whisky cases would come before the court at this special term, and all the jurors outslue of this trial pvnel were discharged. The district attorneT täed addressed tbe Jury,opening the case for the prosecution. He repeated the history of the conspiracy, which was organized here in 1871, stating that it involved all tbe distillers and rect ners and government officers and employes here and nad Its ramifications even In Washington. He cited several dispatchei aileeed to have rtaasad h. tweea Joyce, McDonald, Avery and Babcock, to show that tbe two latter persona were engaged I toe in corn-piracy and corresponded with the i conspirators. The dispatches between Joyce and Babcock, t inching the appo ntment of Col. Constant! ne Mag aire as collector of tbe internal revenue, after the death of tbas. W. Ford, were cited, and Col. Dyer stated that it weuld be proved tbat, from tbat time on XHK DEFENDANT FURNISHED INFORMATION to the ring here. The department was thwarted In all its .efforts to get an investigation that would reveal the rrauds, for the reason that ail the revenue agents sent here to examine into affairs were either booght np on their arrival or advices had been received here of their contemplated visit, and opportunity ihm given the distillers to straighten npand show regular work. Mr. Dyer claimed that it would be clearly shown that Babcock not only had full knowledge of the existence of the Irauda which were carried on, bat tbat be aided the conspirators in their work and received money directly from Joyce, who mailed it to him. Babcock and Avery were the two men at Washington who kept the ring rx:ed. Even after tbe indictment of (Jener! Jobn McDonald, Batxock, it would be preyed, was in secret scret correspon-i , Coknel Dyer be clrcurn- J deuce with h m. Tke evidence said, would in a measn.e tknilal, but there would not be a Unk missing la the chain. Joseph M. Fitzroy was then put on.the witness Bt and for the prosecution. After testifying to his position in the revenue service, etc , be was aaktd by District Attorny Dyer, whocond acted tbe examination, to state what he knew about C. Ci. Megrue, bis operation here la 1871, etc , to which, Judge Kram, for tbe defease, objected, on the ground that such a statement would be only of a hearsay character, as tbe witness did not enter tbe collector's office until May, 1873. Besides the Indictment charged tbe defendant with conspiracy to defraud the government out of a tax of seventy cents per gallon on certain proDf spirits. Now,-in point of fact, there was no tax of seventy cents per gallon on distilled spirits In 1871. Tbat tax did not go into effect until Jane, 1372. He, therefore, held tbat no sucb conspiracy exls'ed or could exist. There might bave been a conspiracy to defraud tbe government of fifty c.nts per gallon, that being the tax tben imposed. But this was not laid out In tbe indictment and be claimed that it was a correct rule of law that a conspiracy mast be proved under the rule, as laid out ia the Indictment. It was UTTERLY INCOMPETENT to (how tha arbtfnM rf a. ivinirl tn rtorr i)...nTiiini...ii. -i. . ... 4 the government generally, when the indictment cusiteu conspiracy io aerraua out oi a particular or specified tax. Col. Broadhead said that It was not necessary to show by a witness what the tax was. it was enough to show that the gover jment had been defrauded. The prosecution was only compelled t3 Jhow thtt a conspiracy was formed, its objects, etc, that the conspiracy continued after ihecbange in tbe tax was made, and that tbe defendant was one of the conspirators. Judges Dillon and Treat ODHulted together a few moments, after which Judge Dillon said: "We will not positively determine now whether the pleader has confined himself to that particular and specific tax of 70 ceuts per pal Jon. As that tax was not imposed ;until 1872, ltmajlbe

that the prosecution can cot show what trans

pired prior to tnai time. But n wnat was aone before was simply continued acts, it does not follow that it is incompetent to chow what the frame, of the structure, etc., was of the whole conspiracy. We have sucb little time to decide these questions that our ruling may. be irregular, and therefore we will keep tbe question in ml ad and decide on Us admission hereafter Tbe witness may answer the question, it being understood tbat the ruling of tbe court on lU competence will be given hereafter. The witness then began to speak about Megrne, whea itxe detente objected, an he ws wltkdrawn and M. Thompson, a distiller, wus ailed. He gave tke history of his connection with the ring, explained bow ce siade crooked, etc., etc., all of wblcb has been stated numerous times tefore. During the examination of this witness, the defensa objected to all tbe questions not directly relevant io the indictment against tke defendant, but Jadge Dillon ruled that testimony to establish tLe existeney of a conspiracy might be given, and the witness gave a tolerably full account of tbo ricgand its operations, FIT Z BOY WAS THEN RECALLED, and Col. Dyer asked him If Megrne ever paid him any money. Btorrs objected to anything more pertaining to "what he called tbe Megrne conspiracy. He said that Thompson had testified that It ended in If Ti, an 1 the prosecution, la opening, stated the same thing. A loag argument ensued, during which Col. Broad head said f hit the theory was that there was a conspiracy rormea In embracing tbe supervisors, coi lector, a special revenue . agent, and others, that they went ou making illicit spirits to tbe close of 1874, wben there was a suepensloo. Tiien in 18 3 the same parties went on again and made more Illicit whisky. It was not necessary that they should meet in a room and lay their p. ans. It was a continuation of tbe same plans, the same division, etc. There was no formal understanding. They all knew what they were to do. Judge fferler interrupted Col. Broadbeeul and stated that tba counsel did not raeet tbe question fairly. The question was wbetber-tbe proHecntion Intended to connect tbe defendant with the conspiracy of 1871. They heard it openly avowed in dellr erate argument by the covernment that there vrasa conspiracy In 1871 which ended in 1872. The same counsel called to the stand a witness who said tbat It was closed in November, 1872. The man who-organlzed it left it and went away, and the effort was to connect the defendant with it. iHe submitted that they could not resort to such means to prove the connection of the defendant with tbis conspiracy. Broad head replied tbat the prosecution lid not admit tbat tbnre was acons pi racy, commencing in 1871 and ending In 1872. It was continuous from 1871 to 187a, wbere the strong arm of tbe law stopped it. Might they not establish tbe fact that Megrne was only an officer of the ring and waa discharged, when he went out. and some one else put in his place. He did not claim that the defendant wai coanect d wiia THE "CONSPIRACY IN 1871. rorter was glad the gentleman so frankly declared that Gen. Babcock was not connected with the Megrue conspiracy. Bat w&s it fair for the government to turn an indictment charging intention to make illicit spirits in 1871 into an e xr use to go back to a conspiracy, with which it was admitted he had no connection, in order to convict him. Ths court said: -As we understand it, tbe inquiry of the witneis is to what took place in 187J, and it is objected to ou tbe ground that the conspiracy of W2 ended in liat year aud is not connectea with tne conspiracy charged in tbe lnd ctmeat. Tbe counsel statid in opening, that the conspiracy with whiol:'be defendant Is alleged to have been connected commenced In 1K71, and extended to IsT'x. Col. Broad bend says that V e government has no tvider.ee to bhow the complicity of the defetdant in 1K71 or 1872. If it were a fact tbat ibe conspiracy ended in Is;?, we should bold it irrelevant to admit anything further concerning that time. But it is not admitted that the conspiracy ended tben. Mr. Thomas us d langaase which se ins ti intlmite that the conspiracy tnded then, but th .t 13 the view of ltlrombis (standpoint. At present we think you bad better direct jonr attention, not to much to the conspiracy in 1871 and 1972, as to that of 187 J and 174 . it we can see, wben tbe case is all in, that the conspiracy In 1871-72 is not a part of tbe conspiracy sLeged iu the indlctrueat, and that tne defendant In not connected with the conspiracy In 1871-72, tben we can act on the testimony already presented And rule It out." The court then adjourned. Tbe Hon. H. C Breasley.of Washington, one of General Babcock's counsel, has been so indisposed since his arrival here that he ha not appeared in the case and left for home to-night-A WEAK POINT IN THE EVIDENCE. MORE TESTIMONY TAKES EVIDENCE OF EVEREST A LONG LEGAL, FENCE THE DECISIONENVELOPES AND BILLS THE WITNESS ONLY SAW ONE BILL PUT IN, AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH WAS THE ENVELOPE. St.Locis, Feb. 10.-In the tilal of General Batcook to-day, the first wltneas put upon the stand was William J. Bs Esett, a ganger In. the ring. Bassett testified as to the operations which came under his observation In 1871, and the winter and spring of 1875. He acknowledged that acting under instructions from superior omcers be connived at frauds while at BevlaA Frazer's rectifying house, and used to find on (Saturday evenings an envelope In his overcoat pocket containing from glCO to 8 JO. Two whisky barrel heads with the aaager's stamp upon them were prod need in com t ann the stub books from which the sumps were taken, un comparison it was I shown tbat in each case tbe stamp on tbe barwhile the corresppntiiog stub reported on five proof gallons to the collector for taxation. The wltnetts also explained what is known among tbe revenae officers as form 122. ana told bow the disposition ot illicit whisky was covered at the rectifying houses. Bassett was followed on the stand by Ab'Jah M. Everst, who testified that be became collector for the ring In August, 1871, and continued to act as such until the seizures In May, 1S73. Collec. ions during that time ran as follows each week: Ulricl's distillery, f 1 too to S ',7, 0; Bingham's, 500 to 1,500; Jonett's, SotH) to fl.luO; Chouletan's, f5ou to 11,100; Bevls A ir.zer's, 1,0C0 to f2,7W. Coming down to tbe spring of 1K75, either late in tebrnary or early in March, Everest said that Joyce once bent him lo tbe sub-treasury ' with a package of 11,000 in small bills to get two SVju bills. He brought them back, and Joyce put them in envelopes an i told him to take them acoss the street and put them in the letter box. Tbe witness raid he did so, and was asked if be observed the direc- , . . ,. I.. i , . nons oa tue leiters. ueiore uecomq answer ids defense interposed an qjou, claiming tbat the prosecutions was now trying to show that bcock'S name was on one of these letters, and t at the evidence was not competent. A;iong trument ensued, and Jtdge DU Ion then adjonined the court tili 3 r. M., and req (tested toe counsel to send their authorities to bis room. Oa the re assembling of the court for tbe afternoon session Judge Dillon said: -'The court is prepared to dispose of tbe question raided on the objection to receive certain evidence." Tne Judge then recited THE 0BJECTI0N3, as made in the argument of tbe counsel for the defense, and said : Upon a review of the authorities relating to the subject of the admissibility, of letters by one person, addressed to another by name at his known postofflce address, prepaid and actually deposited la the postofflce, we concur, both of cs, in the conclusion, adoptDig the language of Chief Justice Blgelow, to wit: "This is evidence tending to show that sucb letters reached their destination and were received oy the persons to whom tbey were addressed." The court then proceeded: This Is not a conclusive presumption, and does not even create a legal assumption that such letters were actually received. It is simply I admissible evidence tending, 1 credited iby ' Jary, hhow lhe rscelpt of such letters. 1 tk tne lactln connection with other circumstances to b referred to the Jury or der appropriate instructions, as its value will depend upon the circumstances of the particular ia.se- it Is otjjf cied also that the evidence, if admissible as tending to rrove the receipt of the money, shou.d he reported as immaterial or lrrelevaut, as having no probHlive force. If it was admitted here by the counsel lor the government that this was all the evidence which they expected to produce for the purpose ot connecting the de:endanl with tbe alleged conspiracy, its conclusive character, standing alone In a case where the defendant's mouth is sealed, wou d doubtless be sncti as that the court would be bound to say to the Jury that It could not safely be made the basl of a conclusion Daculpatlog the defendant, it may

not have been actually received. The writer may not have been known. His purpose may not have been known, or tbe nerton who re

ceived it may not have known why it was rent. or may not have invited It, or.have known tbat it was in any way connected with tbe guilty purpose . ascribed to it by the prosecution, or any .illegal purpose. or plan, and as men act differently ander the same circumstance, It tu for tbe j ury , ander froper Instructions by tbe court, to look at tbe etter, if it was sent and received, in connection with the other clrceimstanoes in evidence. Mr. Everest was tben recalled to tbe stand. 11 testified ; Coloi.el Joyce handed me two envelopes and directed me to put them in the letterbox, wkicb I did. - JOYCE WAS "WATCHING me from the wiTt??wof his ofSce. I was fearing U5m. I oeukl see him watching me. I eaw the directions on the envelopes. One was -directed t3 V'. O. Avery, Washington, P. C, and the other to Gen. O.E. Babcock, Washington, D. C Each of tbera had "personal" on the left hand corner. They were ordinary envelopes and hal no printed matter on them, or other directions, except what I have stateC Tbey had postage stamps on them I did not see Joyce any more that day. I left tbe city June 10, 1&75. and went to Sew York City and from thereto Liverpool. I left Liverpool last Christmas, and arrived In Mew York on tbe 7th oi January. I never saw Gen. Babcock before this trial began Cross-examined by Mr. Htorre: J have been in this city since Jan. 20. I can not tell the month on which I mailed the letters. It was In either Februaryor Match, 1873. - but I am not positive. I think it was In the latter part . of February or the early part of March. I aot the money first from the supervisor's office. Col. Joyce stood in front of his desk when he put the money in the envelopes. The envelopes wete on tbe table when I handed him the two SöuO bills. I Iben sat-down on bis left. I wit watching him attentively, lie first took tbe two envelopes np, took tbe paper out of oneof the envelopes and put the bill in. 1 did notee him put the other 8300 btli ia the other envelope. 1 am not positive that he did pat It in. Whether It was the letter directed to Babcock or to Avery that he put the bill in I can't ety. When I went to Liverpool, 1 had no special business there, except to get out of the way. I knew about the whisky ring, and wanted to keep out of trouble. I went to London and Parin, a ter leaving Liverpool, and then went to Korne, where I lecelved a letter from my brother telling me to return home. He did not tell me It was safe forme to come add I did nottklnk it safe to return. I met Col. McFall wben I landed iu New York, but .tbe meellag was accidental. From New York I went to Philadelphia where I met District Attorcer Dyer. He came to see me. I told him JUST WHAT I HAVE TESTIFIED TO. I told Col. Dyer since I came here what I would testify to on the stand. I told him I couldn't be positive which envelope I saw Joyce put the bill Into. There has be-:n no pressure to make me remember that there was a Sö?ü bill placed in both envelopes. Wben I was before the grand Jury and on my dlreet examination I said that I presumed the second föOO bill was put in the other envelopes, as veil as the one I saw. I do not know whether 1 have been indicted here or not. The papers Fay I am. I made no inquiry about it. 1 have never been arrested on any indictment.Can not say why. There has been no understanding or bargain about it. There bave been no hints to me tbat I would not be arrested. Ibavenorellancethatlwillnot.be. I was be'ore tbe grand Jury at tbe May tTtn. but did not testify that 1 knew nothing about the whisky frauds On his re-direct examination the witness exp alned that Joyce waa standing up at hU aesk when be pa i the money in tue envelope, and alter p'aein one bank note in oneof the envelopes he tr rned partially around, so tbat the witness Fawonly a part of the other envelope and did not see the other bill put into It. Henry P. Alexander, chief clerk aDd teller in the United States sub-treasury of thl el'y, testified to having gien two live hundreu üo;lar notes for small bills to a man whom he old not know afcout a year ago, but be could not Identify Everest as the persoa to whom be gtve them. In fact he rather thought Everest was not the man. Edward B. Frazer, of the distilling firm ot Bevis & Fruzer, then took the stand and tor the fonrth time recited his sto.y of the conspiracy and tbe operations of bis house during ts existence There was nothing new brought out, either in the direct or cross examination of the wltuess.and nothing whatever relating in sny way to (Jen. Babcoctt. Adjourned. During tbe examination oi Everest, and particularly where he was testifying stout the placing of the money in the envelopes addrt ssed to Babccck and Avery, there was a great tensation In court, and tbe interest in the testimony was Intense, but when tha cross-examination revealed the fact that the witness saw tbe money placed in but one envelope, acd he could not tell which one it was he saw the bank note put Into, there was a reaction, and great relief seemed to be ex Derlenoed by tbe counsel and friends of tbe defendant. Tbe counsel for the detente expressed themselves, since the adjournment of court, as greatly delighted at breakins the force of E'Bi2'8 evidence, and sem tobe very sangtH.neth 'tthej' wl ! Oh ail ccC2lona. bucceeu in a use manner DOUGLASS ON THE STAND. EYF.RAL WITNESSES EXAMINED DOUGLASS H STORY A LOT OF LETTERS AND TELEGRAMS THE CROSS EXAMINATION. St. Louis, Feb. lLThe first witness called this morning in the trial or Gen. O. E. Babcock was MaJ. E. B. Grimes, depot quartermaster in the United States army, stationed at St. Louis. MaJ. O rimes was Introduced by tbe prosecution to show that Gen. Babcock carried on a correspondence with McDonald last fall while the latter was under indictment for complicity In the whisky frauds. MaJ. Grimes said: I have been in tbe army since September, I knew General Babcock. having met him first in 18Ö2 in Utah, wbere I was district quartermaster. 1 saw Gen. Babxxk when he was here last fall, probably in Septem her, Just before tbefair time, with the presidential party. He said to me that be would probably want to send some letters or packages thioagh me toother parties. He did not say to whom. Alter thai he Bent three let ters to me I recollect, thai is. I suppose he sent them. I got a latter aderessed to myself with I uviuii ictKi iu lb. iui was a SqO1! time alter I . saw . cjen, Eiococfc aere. The letter erclosed in mine vg in a Vbfte envelope, sealed and rnarlt McDonald. Tbe sole to me in the first lCller wa8 8irrpiy: -Fiease deliver the closed letter to McDonald." H was signed: --o. E. Babcock." 1 gave the enclosed let.r to McDonald, I think, at my office. Vwt5k orten days later I received another .etter through the postomo-j directed to me. There was no note in It, but an envelope addressed in a different band - from that of the first to McDonald. There was no note to me, bat there was a piece of paper wrapped around the envelore. The third letter wasJaU like the second. I delivered all three of these letters to . McDonald. Wben one of them came he was cot here, and in trying to find bim I met his brother-in-law, Tom Walsh, and told blm; but 1 don't know what WaUbsaid. On the cros-examinailon, Major Grimes said that he had known Gen. Babcock personally and Intimately, and that the latter bad been a good friend to blm. On one occ asion when McDonald and McKee were reported to be nsing their Influence to have him removed, because he would not put a man in a place that they wanted, ... , BABCCCK PROMISED HIS INFLUENCE to prevent the removal. The witness, In the course of his cross-examination, said once: When I delivered these letters to McDonald, I B.8icd him, "McDonald, did Babcock have anything to do with this whisky ring," and he said Grimes, I dont know. - I dont believe he knows any more about it than yon do, and jou know yon don't know any thin? about it." On the re-d!rect examination Major Grimes was asked: Did McDonald, in that conversation, say tbat be himself didn't know any thing about the whisky rlnet The -witUfrKs Yes, he did (Laughter) The dlstiict attorney How did you come to ask If Babcock bad anything lodo with the whUky ling? The wltnes- I asked it lor -he slmp.e reason that If Babcock, who bad been my friend, hal had anything to do with it, I was going to drop him. The district at torney What reason bad jou to suspect the General? Ibe witness othlng but the tact of the letters sent thruu-h me. Grimes was followed by B. II. Eugelke, tbe reoiitier whD gave an account of his operations, referring to the amounts raided by tee distillers and rectifiers for t he revenue agents to keep them still and to obtain Information from them, all of whlcn has been repeatedly told. The

witness also testified to having seen In whole or part telegrams, or what purported to be telegrams, in tbe bands of Joyce, informing him of contemplated visits of revenue agents. The witness always straightened ap his house on such occasions, and it almost always happened that age atH came out after Information of thotr coming had been received. H. C. Hogers, deputy coramrssloner of the internal revenue, was then called and testified that in August, 187s, Mr. Douglass, at that time the commissioner, asked . him to correspond with Kevenue Agent Brooks in - regard to snaking an Investigation of affairs at Chicago and KU Loa!. Witness wrote to Brooks who came to Washington for consultation. Brooks wished revenue agent lioaa Ui aatist him. lie was written to and . 1 " AFTER A CONSIDERABLE DELAY, he ca me o Washington and then went to Philadelphia tooonfer with Brooks. Tbey returned to Washington together and after several days left again. The witness said: About the seventh f December, General McDonald came to my room , and stayed bat a few moraeats; The next day he came in and said, "Hogers. I don't want yon to sell me anything, but I want to tell you something, feiooket and Hoar are going to Ht. Deuts on Fporial business and 1 protest against such secr-fi lnvestira tioaa. If tbe officers there are fit to be In office, tbey need no investigation. If tbey are not, they ought to be removed.' I then telegraphed to Brooks to delay the investigation, W. O. Avery was at that tisne chief clerk of the Internal revenue bureau. I received a letter about this time from Mr. Brook. AU the letters were addressed to me personally, and I intended to destroy the correspondence, not being of a nasure I wanted to go on tbe flies. In the latter part of November 1 received a letter from Brooks. It referred to the contemplated investigation and said something about the de lays being profitable to tbe government and satisfactory to ourselves. Mr. Douglass, tbe commissioner, showed me a cony of this letter in his own handwriting. I think Mr. Douglass said that his attention had been called to certain objectionable provisions in tbe letter, and he was cautioned to beware of persons who made use of such expressions. Hcortly after this Mr. Douglass informed me that we would abandon ibe investigation. The witness was briefly cross-examined, bat nothing new was brought out J. W. Donglarc, ex coinmhuMoner of tbe Internal revenue, was next put ou tbe stand and Bald : During 1873, 1874 and 1875 there wereefiorts constantly made to ferret oat the frauds that were being perpetrated.. Several REVENUE AQKN1S WERE SENT TO ST. LOUIS in 1872, but I recaived no definite information from them. Later Brooks and Hoag were sent out especially to look into Frazer'a affairs, and that firm paid tne government forty thousand dollars as a compromise. Wben I sent Joyce to California, it was to get him oat of the war oi the agents whom I sent here and whocomplalned of an excessive attention un his part, wining and dining them so that they could not do any work. McDonald aud Joyc- never came to see me mush when they were In Washington. I had a con versa' ion with Mr. Roge.s in regard to tbe invest'gatuns In the We.-L Irememter Bhowinz him a copy of a letter received bstween the lttli and loth of December from Brooks, saying that the delay would prove i equally profitable to the government and gratifying to ourselves or fomethlngof the klud. A copy of tbe letter was shown to me by General Babcock. He said that a gentleman had hown it to him aud he was afraid that I was going to be deceived by these men. He said that be would hold me responsible for their coiiduct.. 1 told him 1 had great confidence in the men. ne asked what might a sensitive man like 1 ogin say. if he saw tbat letter. Bibcock told me the letter bad been given to him confidentially and requested me not to say from wboui I received IU After th vi.-lt of McDonald to Washington, . I remember, com nj out of my house one day, when 1 met Babcock, and we talked about Hi. Louis matters; I can't sav exactly what was tali. We taised about tha revenue agents coining here once iu 1871. Babcock came to my oftice, and we ta'.xed about tne supposed :CQAHE3 AGAINST FORD who was dead at the time. I told him there were no charges against Ford, that the charges I wag getting np were against the living. He asked what examination had been made and said something about b'.ackeuing the memory of Ford, and that the only way a man's memory could ba blackened who was dead was by su examination. Afterwards Babccck came to me about sending a bird, a thrush, out West. Be came to my cfflce once or twice that I remember, borne two or three mouths before Richardson went oat of olßce 1 had a talk with tbe president, and told blm tbat things were crooked in Ht. Louis, and 1 thought tbat if a proper investigation was made, it would result clearly to the benefit of tbe treasury. Ht concurred wilb me and asked when 1 proposed to begin. On the 6th of January, 1873, I addressed a letter to the secretary of the treasury In regard to the change of supervisors, 'lhe rumors of frauds beginning in 1872 caused me tb write this let'er. Afterward feretary Brlstow came into the office, and we talked the matter 6Ver, c6?cldlng to wait till the fall elec ions we e over. . We walled and then there were a number of senatorial elections and we had to wait until they were over. After tbat we tried to make tbe transfer. A letter was produced and read in regard to the change of officials ot the Internal revenae supervisor-. Tbe witness proceeded. After I addressed the letter to tbe secretary and tbe transfers of tbe supervisors were made, I bad a conversation with tbe defendant. The conversation commenced bv him calling my attention to the subject. He told me it was unwise and would result in bringing sucb a strong piessare oa tbe president tbat tbe order would have tobe recalled, which would be unfileasantforme. Tbe conversation was held at iabcock.'s room in the White House. Tne president was not present. I dont remember to have had any other conversation with tbe defendant about tbe matter The secretary was to notify part lea on the fourth that the order would ba reversed. - - . - - - ....... -V.;i f CROSS-EXAMINATION. BY STQRRS.;. x! ; den. Babcock Is tbe private secretary of tbe president He rvceives aH the correspondence for the president, opens and examines It, and

distributes It among the departments. In , special cases he consalta the president. . Stoi re ; Do yon know that in many eases when special favors were desired, people over the country have sent their requests to Gen. Babcock direct? Witness Yea, sir. Ue lays tbe matter betöre tbe president for action. Complaints frequently ' came from officials at the visits among them of revenue ascents or spies. Storrs have yon known ot the best of your officials complaining oi this? Witness Yes, sir. buch complaints came from all parts o: the con ntry. It was not infrequent -tbat Inquiries were made, officials asking If detectives were to be sent in their districts, btorrs If Supervisor Fulton had asked you if yon were going -to send detectives into bis district, would yon bave had any hesitation . in telling hlmT Witness Not at all. Storrs It depended on your opinion of the officers 7 Witness Yes, sir. Btorrs-bomethtng was said of an Interview between yon and Uen. Babcock la whlcb the name of Ford was used. Wasn't it as regards Ford and him alone that Babcock asked? Wltaess 1 believe it was. btorrs Did , yon understand that Babcock desired to influence your action, as regards your plans to break np tbe frauds. Witness I only understood It as I have explained the circumstances. Storrs Did yea not understand him to bs anx. ious . to protect a man whose reputa ion he . bei eved ptUr, and who was the .president's ' ftlend.' WitnessYes, sir, I told him there were no charges againat Mr. Ford. jfy suspicions were against other officials in St. Louis, btorrs I desire to rail your attention to the letter which General Babcock, you say, showed you. Wasn't Hoae's name in that letter T Wltnees Yes, sir. The letter spoke of a Western trip. I don't think it mentioned SU Louis. Htorrs Did General Babcock mention Ht. Louis? Witness 1 think not. Hesnr keof fcecator Loean as likely to feel seufcl'Jve . over the chaiges. fctorrs bpeaaing ' of this letter, do you remember his saylog to you that it looked a 11. tie like addition, dlvlilon and silence? Witnest I ought to do tbat. It originated in my state, btorrs Id fennsylvauia? Oh, Ivmgld to learu where that idea cau.e from. Was not that a time when It was deemed Important to conciliate the senator? Witness Weil, inyexperlence is tbat that Is a continuous time in Washington. Ktotr Now-- I come to the transfer ot supervisors. The idea, I understand you to - say. was conceived before Mr. B istow came into office? Witness My first conversation on the subject with the president was, 1 think, two or three months before

Mr. Brlstow came in. The order was issued on the 27th of February, I believe, it was, perhaps, two days after the Issue ot the order that I had the conversation wiih Gen. Babcock. A good deal of pressure would b9 brouaht to bear on me, and it was so. The political pressure brought to bear was very great. At this point Mr. Storrs said there were soue documents he wished to look over before be went over the cross-examination, and it was sa late the court was adjourned till morning.

h THE SYLPII DISPATCH. D0UGLAS3 FINISHED ONE MESSAGE ADMITTED MORE TESTIMONY BY ROGERS THE FK3HT OVER THE TEL.EQBAMS SPEEC1IKS OF THE COUNSEL UPON THEIR ADMISSION MORC WIND COMING MONDAY. St. Locis, Mo Feb. 12 Upon the opening of the Babcock trial this morning, tbe cross-ex-amlaatlou-of J. W. ! Douglass, ex-commlssioner of the Intern 1 revenae. was completed In a few Important questions. On the redirect, the District attorney presented an affidavit purporting to be charges preferred in 1871 by Lindsay Murdock, a collector of the internal revenue in Hon t beaut Ml'souri. The charges were against Jobn A. Joyce and Jocn McDonald, respectively revenue agent and superior . Tbe envelope was Indorsed by C O. Kniffen, the president's private secretary, showing that it bad been received at Dae executive mansion and referred to the treasury department. Another Indorsement showed the reference to the commissioner of tbe internal revenue, Mr. Douglass could Dot testify that be bad seen the affidavit in. his office. Ihedlitrict attorney said that be proposed to read tbe affidavit. sbowiDg that ha 1873 charges against Joyce and McDonald had bee a sent to the executive mansion and had gone througn the departments. The court only allowed the witness to testify that tbe indorsements showed that such charges bad been received and fled. They were not read. Nearly tbe entire morning eeslon was taken np in trying to trace, thron gh tbe telegraph clerks of this city aDd Washington, and also by the doorkeepers and messengers of the executive mansion, certain telegrams not yet admitted and to trove that they were received and sent back and forth between Joyce and McDonald nere and Uen. Babcock In Washington. Finally the defense waived this proof as to one ai patch and allowed the following, admitted to be DxGen. Babcock 's handwriting, to be read: Washington. D. C., Dec. 13, 1874.' Uen. John McDonald, Bt. Louis, Mo.: 1 succeeded. They will not go. l will write' you. (Slgued:) Bylph. Before this was read. Judge Porter announced that tbey proposed to make a lengthy legal argument against the admission of the other telegrams, and perhaps they might wish to Include thU"aiynh" dispuca in those orjected to; tbe defense wished to reserve that p jlnt. Deputy Commissioner Rogers was recalled and testified: I bad a conversion witn Gen. Babcock in regard to tbe transfer of revenue agents. Bibcock said that he had heard that Mr. Douj ass was A ROUT TO ISSUE AN ORDER directing a transfer of agents, I told him the orJer bad that morning been issued. Ue expressed his regret, as it would bring a olitlcal pressure on Douglass and he would be forced to revoke the order, and that would work disastrously to him. Douglass was at that time spoken of as a candidate for the Court of Claims. There would be more cr less odium on him (General Babcock) on account of tbe failure ot tne enterprise wben tbe order was revoked. That interview came about by a messenger's bringing . me there a note or a vernal commuulcaliou from General Babcock 1 had no previous conversation With him on this matter. 1 did speak to him before about the Judgshlp of tbe Court of Claims. There was not a word sa d in tLe conversation with Gen Babcock at his bouse in regard to breaking up the frauds here. Douglass was not appointed Judge of the Court of CUInn, for there was no vacancy. I do not know that ibe revoking of the order changing supervisors had cast such I od utn oa Mr. Doogiasa tht be was not appointed. Iu tha conversation with Oenrai tabcock, I told him I shou d report theu. - interview - tt- Mr. Douglass. On the cross-examination the witness said: I had two interviews with Gen. Babcock, ttia first of which 1 sought myself. My ulterior object was to promo e the interest of Air. Douglass in conuection with the judgshlp of the Court of Claims, thinking no doubt 1 might get the position held by him as commissioner. Gen. Babcock expressed great friendship for Mr. Douglass. I do notkuow of any iuduence brought to bear, except lrono rumor, to have the order transferring the supervisors revoked. 1 think I made application by letter to Gan. McDonald to eecure bis assistance. I had no suspicions of him at tbat time. The revoking of the order by ;the president would create an impression that Mr. Douglass was rebuked. Tbe lea lng object of Gen. Babcock was Jnde Douglass's interest, although ne spoke of one more oujec, viz.: saving tbe presdent from being annoyed. Tne opposition of the defense, acd tbe admission of dispatches alleged to bave passed between Joyce. McDonald and. Batxock was can led to the utmost extremity. 1 hey wou'd admit nothing, the clear proof of which could not be produced. They required not only proof of the "AUTHORSHIP AND TRANSMISSION" by teleg aph, bat that the d sr atcbes were actually placed in the bands of tbe persons to whom they were addressed . So far til prosecution have satisfied the defence only in one instance, that of the "Sylph" telegram, given above. The defense also objected to the relevancy of these dispatches, and stated that they would urge their objections at considerable length, and with this view tbey requested the prosecution to group all the dispatches togother, that argument might be made atone lime rather than on each dispatch wben offered. Tbe dispatch which met tbe moat determined and persistent opposition is one sent from St. Louis on December 8, 1874, to (Jen. Babcock at Washington, signed "J,"and admitted to be in Joyce's band writing. But it was not read, and therefore Its contents are not known outside oi the counsel. Tbe dispatch was traced into the bands of Geo. H. Joyce, tbedoorkeeper at the secretary's office at the execa'ive mansion, Washington, who receipted tor it, bat as Joyce died some months ago there Is no positive proof that Uen. Babcock ever read It. Other dispatches were traced ia a I. ke manner to the doorkeepers, or others who receipted fr them, bur. these persons, who were placed on the stand and testified to receiving and receipting for them, as shown by the receipt books of the telegraph company, could not Identify or iweartotbe actual delivery of any particular dispatch to tbe person to whom it was addressed. J adge Dillon made a partial inllng on tbis qne-tlon, taking the same ground that be did. tne other day, when deciding about tbe admission of the testimony of Everest, regarding ibe mailing of letters to Babcock and Avery with money luclosures. He said : - It is Drue there is no positive pro i that this dispatch was delivered. It is traced into the bands of the doorkeeper at the presidential mansion. He has no independent recollection of this particular dispatch. He states that his ensturn was to receive them, deliver them himself, or send them by others. Now we won't say that this does not raise a large presumption that this was received, bat we are inclined to think, as we said tbe other day, tbat this Is evidence tending to show that and la proper to be laid before the Jary for their consideration. It was then agreed that the dispatches should be i grouped together and ' tbe question of ther delivery, etc., and their relevancy should be , arfued at the same- time. , At the opening of ; .. ..' ' j THE AFTERNOON SESSION the counsel OR both sides appeared with numer ous law books and evidently prepared to make their arguments as strong as possible. Several witnesses fron Washington, including Douglass and Rogers, were excused from farther servic e and will leave for home to night. Mr. Storrs opened the argument for the defence. He said that this seemed to be a good opportunity to take the bearings in tbe cae. to inquire whether they were drifting, and, if possible, to get out of, this fog, this smoae, this general cq: saey (D which they bad been for the last five days. To do this, It was necessary lo Consider the indictment. Nearly five day 8 bad been spent la trying to ascertain wbethr any conspiracy ever existed. A very small part of that time had been devoted to tbe de'eadant, and np to this timo ttothlnz had been product U azainsthim. Th:s conspiracy must first be shown to have existed. It is not every tec aratton which is admlssable. The adml.-slon.ln whatever hape or declaration, in whajever form not mateilai, is not admisab e. 'ibe paper p esented haslnot been shown, as it must be to be material. If there is any occurt meaning, that must ba shown betöre the paper can he accepted. The beccucan not -present a paper out of which Innocence may appear or guiit be guessed until it shall be shown which is tha meaning. Here are put Da telegrams, the most susceptible of all

documen try evidence to distortion. Tbe ones produced can't be received as evidence because thev show an intimacy between Joyce and McDonald and tbe defendent. Because men have been intimate in years pat ana the guilt of one has suddenly bten discovered . the guilt of tbe other can't ba proven by any documents Uke abbreviated telegrams, . THE KIND OF EVIDENCE sought to be introduced. A man can, be held respons'ble for the present condition of a man with whom, e'ght o?tn years ago, he may have been intimate. The trouble is that the court aDd the Jury w:u fall to put themselves In the defendant 8 position. It Is rot enough tbat it must be shown tbat these dispatches were sent by the defendant to this corrupt combination It must be shown that tbis defendant knew of this corruption, before this le!eg-am becomes admissible. Geo. Babcock is not indicted for jiving information to Joyce and McDonald, aud it is not unlawful for them to ask or for blm to communicate such Information. To make such inquiries illegal, the prosecution must fi:t prove mat Joyce and McDonald asked this of Babcock from corrupt motives and purposes, tnat they were corrupt men. that the defendant was or ie a corrupt man and knew the corrupt purposes sought by Joyce and McDonald, said that afur a search of many telegraph offices aud efforts made to procure tbe defendant's private correspondence, four purposeless, so far as this easels concerned, telegrams bad been found. He cited the "tryiph" dispatch, ana one other, and said tbat all combined were no evidence to show that tbe defendant had any knowledge of the rrauds at bt. Louis. Referring io Joyca s dUpa'ches, he said bat tbey were no mote than declarations because tbey were written, and no more admissible. Written dec aratlons were no more than uuf-uppo ted declarations made respecting one who is absent to a third party, and that was not admissible. Mr. Btorrs cited a numbsr of authorities without reading, and iu conclusion said: We think, with reference to the telegrams addressed to Gen. Bibcock by Joyce, it whl be found that they hal ko relation to the subject matter involved in this triaL and, second, that they were unanswered, and it is not shown that they were received by Gen. Fabcock. Col. Dyer followed btorrs, contending tbat there was evidence to prove ' AN IMPORTANT FACT, which was that information was received from Washington by the ring here, giving them knowledge of the contemplated visits of revt nue ajents. These dispatches of Babcock, taken; In their proper connection, tend to show this, and that he furnished this information, or some of it.- This evidence should goto thejury.and its weight be decided by thm. Col. Broadhead then spoke for the prosecu ion and gave numerous authorities to show that these dispatches were not only relevant but competent. They wre evidently connected with the conspiracy, and taken in connection with tbe circumstances testifl d to the events shown In the evider.ee they were a part of that conspiracy. Lie contended that they were entirely competent aud should be admitted ani the Jury should hi allowed, uuder the proper rulings and instructions ot the court, to give taem soch consideration as thfy thought they were worthy o'. Judge Totter then began his argument, taking much tha same ground as Mr. Storni, claiming that in regard to some of thedirpatches produced, there was no proof that they were ever received by Gen. Babcock, and respecting the others purporting to have ben written by him, that mere was no evidence that he ever saw or knew aaythinn about them. Before Judge Porter got iairjy into h s speech the court adjourned, and the argument will be continued Monday. A FEW RESERVED FOR CJNSIDERAf TI0N..

JUDO 3 PORTER 8 CHARGE DECISION OK JCEQE DILLON A FW WITNESSES RXAMINED READING DISPATCHES BOMB TELLING ONES JOYC'k'8 RKPOP.T. bt. Louis, Feb. lt. JudePorter, in cow c!uding bis argument ngalnst the admission of the telegrams in the Babcock trial, eccu pled nearly ail the morning tension t-day. His conclusions were tbat they were writings, and, whether proven to be what they purported In their origin and des lnation. It was still a question of law whether thy cou:d be admitted as eviderce. He did not by any means admit, however, that tMa proof and identification had been shown. To the great, majority of these teiezrams, there were produced no answers at all. buch were merely neat nay, mere y letters relating facts and making inquiries which did note nvey the s.lghte.-t blntot a conspiracy. But none or these, whatever mlsht b snown of them or whatever construction be put upon tbem, were ad oisslble as testimony until by intrinsic evidence it bad been established that Gen. Babcock had knowledge of ibe existence of a conspiracy. This must first be proven aud it bad not been proven. Arter Jnoge Porter concluded, Thomas J. Walsh, a brothei -in-law of G ;n. McDonald and chief cler In his office when supervisor, was called and ldentined several letters and dispatches written by him at the dictation of McDonald, and also identified tbe signatures of himself and Joyce affixed to reports for telegrams to McDonald, Joyc i and others. On the opening of the afternoon session Julge Dillon read the DECISION OF THE COURT touching the admissibility of tbe dispatches, as follows : "Respecting the objections against tbe admissibility as evidence of certain dispatches the Jndges bave nnlted In tbe conclusion, as respects all except two dispatches respectively dated the 3d and 5th of December, wa reserve tbe questions arising noon thee dlspatobas, which are somewhat novel and peculiar, for farther consideration. All tne others are offered witb certain objections, which we proceed to stats aod ootiea and decide. We are of tbe opinion that the objection to the dispatches based upon tbe ground that they are not relevant or material is not well taken. The Jury Is tbe constitutional tribunal to determine controverted questions of fact, under appropriate ad vice from the court to assist them In the discharge of duty. KenneJy Doff, manager ot tbe Atlantic 4 Pacific telegraph or hoe at Washington, was called, and explained the manner of handling: dispatches in that ofilca. One of the dispatches in question and to which tbe defense made strenuous objections, tbe one dated December 6ih. IbH, and asserted to have been sent by Bab-ock to Joyce, could not be found. The package of telegrams of thai cby baring been lost aud only a copy was produced. This dispatch is alleged to nave beau an answer to one sent by Joyce, from St. Louis, to cUbcock, and was traced into tbe hands of Ueorge Joyce, a doorkeeper at tbe white house. But Joyce'a signature had not been Idea titled by tha prosecution, and , therefore, its 'delivery was only inferential, 'ibe court decided ti at tbe record and register of telegraph office did not remove the difficulty la thlicass. Tnese dispatches are the ones ie erred to in Judge Dillon's decision, given above,, and about wbicb he ressrved bis opinion. C C. bnitr, one of the president's private secretaries, was called, but he could not identify George Joyce's writing. W.F. b perry and Messrs. Lennox and Cunningham, clerks at tbe Planter's Hou e, this city, tes Tried to having received and receipted for several dispatches to McDonald and Joyce in 1874, mostly In December. Among tbem was one dated December 5th, supposed to be the one reported to have been sent by Babsock to McDonald and to whlcn such objection has been made. K B. Brown, manager of tbe Western Union Telegraph office in this city, tben explained tbe manoer In which the records of bis office are kept and how telegrams are bandied, both for transmission and delivery. Coiiyer then read the following. TELEGRAMS, WHICH WERE ADMITTED order the court's decision at the opening of the afternoon session; Washington, inly 1, 1871. Ivnn alcDoaald.Bt. Louis: Things look all right here, uev in macnine go. Signed. I joilk. Washington, 1C, July S, 1871. John McDonald t Matters are hunky. Gi it lively aid watc'i sharply, ibiguea. Joyce. Wasuinütos, D.C., July 17, 187 U John McDonald, Bt. Louis: Am hereon my return. What caul dofrr our side. JSigued Joyce. Bt. Louii, July 18, 1S7L John A.. Joyce, Washington : HiB Mazuire's letter to commissioner concarnIng Busby's house, sure. (signed John McDonald. Here came In several Avery Concluded on Fl fib Page.

sn'ii -. . v. -