The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-12-11
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BABCOCK COURT OF
INQUIRY. E s.

CHICAGO, Dec. 1O.-The Babcock court of
inquiry met at noon. Gen. Hancock read the
following
= A sense of duty to the laws of the mill
tery service and to the accused compel me to
As II a. concurrence in the postponement OF
this inquiry for the present. We are all
bound to believe the entire innocence of Col.
Babcock, and the presumption can not be re-
PEELED without clear evidence. 1t is due to
him to suppose that this court OF inquiry was
asked in good faith, for the reasons gwen.
What were those reasons?
In the course of legal trial in ST. Louis,
COL Babcock was alleged to be guilty OF
high criminal offense. He asked hearing In
the same court, but was informed he could
not have it, because the evidence had closed.
Those circumstances led him to demand
court of inquiry as the only means of vindica-
ton left Since then he has been formally
indicted, and is now certain of getting full
and fair trial before an impartial jury which
the laws of the country guarantee to all its
citizens.
The supposed necessity for converting
military court for the determination OF his
guilt or innocence, no longer exists. 1t Is
believed our action as military tribunal can
not Dust the jurisdiction of the court while
the indictment is pending. The President
has said, through the Attorney General, that
ST. Louis and this inquiry must go on at the
same time, unless We await the result OF the
| inquiry there.
The difficulties are formidable. The &C.
cused must be present at the trial OF the in
dictment. Shall we proceed and hear the
case behind his back, or shall we vex him
with two trials at once? The injustice Of this
is manifest. l presume from the nature OF
the case that the evidence is very voluminous,
consisting of records, papers and oral testi-
mony. Can we compel the production OF
these while they are wanted for the purposes
of the trial at st. Louis? Certainly not, If
the military be, as the Constitution declares,
subordinate to the civil authorities. Shall We
proceed without evidence, and give an opln-
| ion in Ignorance of the facts2 That can not
be the wish OF anybody.
take it for granted the trial at st. Louis will
be fair as we'll as legal. Judgment will be &C
cording to the truth and justice of the cause.
It will, without ques tien, be binding and con-
elusive upon us, spon the government, upon
the accused, and upon all the world Ii ne
should be convicted no decision of ours could
rescue him out of the hands of the law. Ii
acquitted, our belief in his innocence will be
of no consequence. If we anticipate the
trial in the civil court our judgment, whether
for the accused or against him, Will have, ana
ought to have no effect upon the Jurors. 1t
can not even be made known to them, and
any attempt to influence them by it, would
Justly be regarded as an obstruction Of public
;nstice. On the other hand his conviction
there would be conclusive evidence of his
guilt, and his acquittal will relieve him from
the necessity Of showing anything but the
, record.
| do not propose to postpone indefinitely
but simply to adjourn from day to day unit
. evidence upon the subject of our inquiry
shall receive definite, conclusive shape, which
4 will be impressed upon it by verdict of thu
> [coNTNUED c. LAST PAGE.