Rensselaer Union and Jasper Republican, Volume 8, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 February 1876 — GEN. BABCOCK’S TRIAL. [ARTICLE]

GEN. BABCOCK’S TRIAL.

PRESIDEMT QUANT'S DEPOSITION. A Washington Associated Press dispatch of the 12th says the President’s deposition waa taken on that day at the Executive Mansion. There were present Chief-Juatice Col. William A. Cook (one of Gen. Babcock’s counsel), and Mr. Eaton, who represented the prosecution. The oath was administered by the Chief-Justice, and the examination developed the facts that Gen. Babcock had not influenced or attempted to influence the Executive in the selection of any official involved in the so-called Whisky Ring; that he had not interfered in any manner to cause the suspension of the celebrated order for the transfer of Supervisors, but that the revocation was directed by the President himself, in order that, suspicion being removed from the minds of those engaged in the frauds, they might the more readily be detected in their efforts to cheat the Government out of the revenue on distilled spirits; that the President still had implicit- confidence In the integrity of Gen. Babcock, and was satisfied with his explanation of the dispatches which have formed so Important an element In hla prosecution. The cross-examin-ation elicited nothing of importance, but developed the fact that if there had been anything wrong on the part of Gen. Babcock, which the President emphatically stated he did not believe, it was entirely without the knowledge of the Executive." The President stated that during the twelve years that Gen. Babcock had been intimately associated with him, he had not learned anything calculated to impair his confidence in his integrity.

SIXTH DAT. After the conclusion of the arguments as to the admissibility of the dispatches, Judge Dillon decided in favor of their admission, and they were subsequently read In court, and comprised various telegrams from Messrs. Joyce, McDonald and others to Messrs. Babcock, Douglas and Avery,., in. Washington, enff frbmtbe ratter-ham ed gentlemen to the former. Thomas J. Walsh, brother-in-law of Gen. McDonald, and chief clerk in the office when Supervisor, was called and identified several letters and dispatches written byjtim at the direction of Mr. McDonald, and also identified the signature of himself and Mr. Joyce affixed to receipts for. telegrams to Messrs. McDonald, Joyce and others. .. __ Kennedy Duff, manager of the A. &P. Telegraph office at Washington, was called, and explained the manner of handling dispatches in that office. One of the dispatches in question, and to which the defense made slrenuous objections, (dated Dec. 5,1874, and reading as follows: “ I cannot hear that anyone has gone or is going,’’land asserted to have been sent by Gen. Babcock to Mr. Joyce, could not be found, the package of telegrams of that day having been lost, aud only a copy was produced. This dispatch is alleged to have been an answer to one sent by Mr. Joyce from Bt. Louis to Gen. Babcock,.add was traced into the hands of Geo. Joyce, 4 door-keeper at the White House, but Mp. Joyce’s signature had not been identified tfy the prosecution, and therefore its delivery was only -inferential.

SEVENTH HAY. Alfred Bevis, distiller, testified that Joyce showed him the “Sylph” dispatch from Babcock in December, 1874, and that his understanding from it was that the revenue agents were not coming, arid on the strength of it preparations were made to run the crooked. When Joyce showed the witness this dispatch he told him “ everything was all right,” and to “go ahead.” ’Joyce showed witness a letter, three or four days after he saw the dispatch, which satisfied him (witness) that it was ail right, and the making of illicit whisky would not be disturbed. E. B. Frazer, business partner of the previous witness, was called, and stated that Mr. Bevis showed him the letter mentioned in his (Bevis 1 ) testimony in December, 1874, and that the effect of it was that their house recommenced making illicit whisky. On cross-examiuatiou witness said he was pretty well acquainted with Hoge, the revenue agent to whom the ring mouey had been paid, but could not tell just when he began to serve the ring, no how he was seduced Into the service. The witness received various letters" T*td telegrams from Hoge, gome of the letters .signed “ Bjxby.” He recollected going to Cincinnati to meet him on one occasion in response to a telegram. Hoge kept the ring pretty well advised of the movements of the revenue agents, and was generally considered as working conscientiously in filfe cause in which he had been _ - ■ J. J. Brooks, formerly Revenue Agent, but now Assistant Chief of the Secret Service Division of the Treasury Department-testi-fied and corroborated Commissioner Douglass’ account of his efforts to unearth the frauds in St. Louis in 1874, giving the same dates of consultations, interviews, letters, telegrams, visits to Washington, Philadelphia, etc., by himself and Hoge aB were given by Mr. Douglass. Telegrams in cipher were then offered in evidence, which the defense claimed were confidential dispatches between counsel and cUent, and they were ruled out by the court. Col Dyer then offered what are known as the Avery dispatches in evidence, and they were ■dlttM. 1

The case here closed ou the part of the prosecution, with the exception of the tesriof a Washington witness who would 3 as to the uand-writiug of two dis:s yet ip dispute, arid who would take the stand as soon as he arrived in St. Louis. “ EIOHTIfDAY. Ex-Atfy-Gen. Williams opened the case for the defense on the 18th, and after he had finished, Geo. A. A. Humphreys, Chief of Engineer Corps, United States Army;, David W. Mahon, first officer of the Treasury; James 4. Berrett, ex Mayor and ex-Postmas-ter of Washington, and Gen. N. P. Banks, all testified as to Gen. Babcock’s integrity and good moral character.

Alex. P. Tuttou testified that he is Supervisor of Internal Revenue of the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia; remembered the order transferring the Supervisors in January, 1675; had a conversation on the subject with Sec’y Bristow, who told him to call on the President, which witness did; told the President It -would be very ttcouvenient for him to'go to St. Louis, and Impossible If the transfer was to continue bd.v length of time. The President said he war sorry that it would inconvenience tbe witness, and stated that it was thuiight that a great deal of fraud was being committed in St. Louis SU& Chicago, end this order was made to de-

tect Hume frauds; that, while he didn’t think the uMcers of these places wore involved, he did think the frauds were tiring eommltted, end that a change of ofllcan waa necessary In Offer to suppress afrch frauds; that there had been considerable mditical influence brought to beurtra bin tore voke the order, but he thaught U necessary to carry It out to prevent these frauds Witness then gave to the President hla reasons why he thought the order was injudicious, and the President finally said that the more Information hi received the bettor' he was satisfied that this order would not accomplish the purpose Intended, Slid he would revokiUt that day (Fab. 3), and id so. On the crosidexamiuation witness said he saw Gen. Babcock while in Washington, but the latter never said anything about a pressure being brought to have the order suspended; did not then liavfc a talking acquaintance with Gen. Babcock. Eight letters were then submitted by the defense, and admitted by the court, the contents of which show that ex-Revenue Agent Hoge, now In Canada, supplied G. B. Bingham, of Indiana, steadily with information from June, 1874, to the seizures in May, 1875, the defense (Claiming that Hoge became corrupted several muntbß before the prosecution’s testimony showed it to have occurred. NINTH DAY. Gen. W. T. Sherman, Gen. James H. Simpson (of tiie Corps of Engineers), Gen. W. 8. Harney, Capt. L. 8. Bebbltt (commanding tho St. Louis Arsenal), Gen. 8. B.Bturgis(in command of the St Louis post), the Hon. E. A' Borle (ex-Becretary of the Navy), and Gen. J. L. Fullerton (a lawyer of St. Louis), testified as to the good character of the defendant. Ex-Gok. Fletcner identified several letters from Babcock to Joyce as those placed in his possession a few weeks before by Mrs. Joyce. Letters were then Introduced, dated rbspeclively March 3 and March 22, 1875. to show, as counsel said, that so late as the date of such letters there was no suspicion of Gen. McDonald either by Deputy-Com. Rogera or the Department. Beveral letters written by Col. Joyce to Gen. Babcock, and answers to the same, were introduced, all of which were of a social character, and indicated that the writers of them were on friendly terms, but such letters contain 110 allusions whatever to ring matters or anything connected with revenue affairs.

The dispatch of Pec. 5,1874, and signed O. E. Babcock, saying “ Cannot hear that any one has gone or is going,” was ruled out by the Court, but the one of Dec. 3, 1874, to Gen. O. E. Babcock, from St. Lopjfi. -ttsk.injt. m—(M inu .< j . iT. iiniiTriTiijiref-syasrwr anybody here?” was admitted. Jas. Magill, a letter-carrier in Bt. Louis,., testified that in the latter part of February, 1875, Col. Joyce had accosted him on the street and requested witness to asssist him in recovering two letters deposited in the letter-box ou the corner of Pine and Fifth streets, which he (Joyce) described as being addressed, one to W. O. Avery, Washington, D. C., and the other to O. E. Babcock, Washington, D. C., and marked persona). Witness did as requested, and when he abked Joyce for a receipt for the letters, and told him If he wanted to rcmailthem he (witness) would go with him and see it done, Joyce replied that it was all right, saying ’* It’s only a blind.” On the cross-examination, witness said it was a frequent thing to return letters on business routes; recollected this circumstance particularly because it was off his beat; had opened boxes frequently on business streets, and returned. letters, but could not recollect the names of any other persons for whom he had done so, but finally- said he had returned a totter to Gen. G. W. Fishback. Witness was repeatedly Dressed to recollect the name of anybody else for whom he had taken letters out of the boxes, but he could not remember one; he carried blank receipts and bad receipts with him when he gave the letters to Joyce, but Joyce refused to give him a receipt, aayiHg that it was only a blind. The deposition of President Grant was read and admitted by the court in nearly its original form. The defense announced their case closed.

TENTH DAT. George Gavin, the Secretary of the St, Louis Board of Police Commissioners, was called for the purpose of showing the record of Magill, the letter-carrier, who testified to returning two letters to Joyce. The witness did not answer, and the District-Attorney announced that the Government would putin no rebuttal testimony. Judge Porter, for the defense, after citing authorities and precedents, then asked for the acquittal of the defendant at the hands of the court. Col. Brodhead replied to Judge Porter, after which the court overrulad the motion of the latter. The proposition being then made that the prbsecution should open the arguments. Judge Dillon announced that, as a matter of justice to the defendant, he would suspend the usual rule, and require the prosecution to open in order that the defense might not waste time in guessing on what portion of the mass Of testimony the prosecution relied. Neither counsel being prepared to begin their arguments, the court adjourned.