The daily gazette., 1875-12-13
THIRD EDITION
From the N Y. World.
Henderson's Discharge an Outrage.


sons of "Uncic Sam" having turned
aside after lucre, and given us a rule
of "rings," rings of Tweed, rings of
Shepherd, rings of CASEY. rings of
Babeock, is Henderson to be removed
for ailuding to this striking Scrip.
tural parallel and drawing its certain
moral ?
Henderson, coming next to particu-
lars,
went into consideration of the evi
dence against Avery. claiming that it
was of the most irrefragable charac
ter and conclusive of the defendants
guilt.
"Thc name Of Babcock was fre.
qucntly coupled with that of Avery,
the speaker claiming that the Govern.
ment was in possession of absolute
proof of his completely. The action
of President Grant In moving Internal
Revenue Commissioner Douglass was
referred to as arbitrary and indefensi-
bic. MIR. Henderson claims in effect
that Commissioner Douglass would
have unearthcd the frauds long ago, If
he had not been prevented by the ac-
tion of Grant"
Did or did not President Grant order
the removal of Douglass. Was not the
District Attorney, Dyer, present when
Henderson made these remarks, and
who could have apprehended so well
as he the stress at this point of the case
OF the Government, of the evidence in
his possession, showing the effect of
the Presidents action on the interests
OF the Government and showing it may
be also ths influence of Babcock in
determining that action If Dyer re
garded the remarks of Henderson as
proper and authorized by the evidence
in the case, gong to show as they did
that Babcock, the author Of the tele-
grams to Avery, had, as part of the
conspiracy, Influenced Grant otliciously
and illegally to Interfere with Dou
glass, on what ground did the AT
torney General pronounce these re.
marks an outrage ION professional
propriety ?"
Henderson next said that
Duglass had long suspected that a ring
existed at st Louis, and for that reason
effected achange of Mcdonald and joyce
to other supervisory districts; but when
they heard Of it they went post haste 10
Washington, had a private conference
with the President and took ride with
him, the result of which was that the
order transferring Mcdonald to Phila-
delphia was changed, and Mcdonald re-
turned to st. Louis in triumph and con
tlnued his frauds upon the Treasury.
Was this improper? Does the Pres
kent now defend his intimacy with Nc
Donald? Had notthe Government pros
ecators evidence before them to show
that this ride" led to the order inter-
tering with Bristow's order of transfer,
and so diract.y to the frauds that follow
ed ? II We mistake not, the Government
organ in this city, the Times, at that
time deplored this Interference of the
President. Ii was also IAN outrage on
propriety z" Then queried Henderson
What business has Babcock to inter
fere with the duties of Douglass None.
Vixen an officer goes into his position he
should know nothing but the law. What
right had the President to interfere with
the du'ies OF the Secretary Of the Inter.
ior 7 None. .iWhat right had he TO inter.
fere with the duties Of the Commission.
er of Internal Revsnue9 None and Mr..
Douglass displayed lamentable weaa
ness in listening to the Interference Of
the President or Mr.. Babcock or any 9th
er man."
WHAT possible answer can he made ia
these qu estions which would not abund.
antly justify Henderson. fighting for the
public Treasury against conspiracy OF
rogues parading Presidential protection
and friendship, in asking these ones.
t!ons MIR. Henderson IN his sphere ik,
the President in his sphere was actin.
for the people OF the United States.