The New York herald., 1875-12-11
Grand jury were prompted by some ulterior
motive not apparent in the letter.
THE COURT OF INQUIRY.


PcsrPoEzMESr on INVESTIGATION UNTIL. AyrER
TIM rRIAL-sPKEcH OF GENERAL HANCOCK.
CHICAGO, Dec. 10, 1875
The Babcock Court of Inquiry met again
at noon to-day.
ADDRESS BY GENERAL BABcocK.
General Hancock Immediately arose and
read the following -
"A sense of duty to the laws, to the mill
tary service and to the accused impels me to
ask your concurrence in postponement OF
this inquiry for the present. We are all
bound to believe in the entire innocence Of
Colonel Babcock, and the presumption cam
not be repelled without clear evidence. 1t
is due to him to suppose that this Court Of
Inquiry was asked in good faith for the rea-
sons given. What were those reasons? In
the course of a legal trial in St Louis Colo
mel Babcock was alleged to be guilty of
high criminal offence He asked for hear
ing in the same court but was informed
that he could not have it because the
evidence was closed Those circumstances
led him to demand Court of Inquiry, as
the only means Of vindication that was left
Since then he has been formally indicted
and he is now certain Of getting that full
and fair trial before an impartial jury which
the laws Of the country guarantee to all its
citizens.
NO NECESSITY OF A MILITARY COURT
''The supposed necessity for convening
military court for the determination
of his guilt or innocence no longer ex-
lists. 1t is believed that our action as mill
tary tribunal cannot GUST the jurisdiction of
the Court while the Indictment is pending.
The President has said, through the Attor-
ney General, that such was not the inten-
ton. Then the trial at ST. Louis and this
inquiry must go on at the same time.
Unless we await the result of the trial
there the difficulties are very formidable.
The accused must be present at the
trial of the indictment. Shall we proceed
and hear the cause behind his back, or shall
we vex him with two trials at once? The
injustice of this is manifest. presume,
from the nature of the case, that the evidence
is very voluminous, consisting of records,
papers and oral testimony. Can we compel
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 with
out evidence and give an opinion in igno-
rance of the facts? That cannot be the wish
Of anybody. / take it for granted that the
trial at St Louis will be fair as well as legal,
and that the judgment will be according to
the very truth and justice Of the
cause. 1t will, without question, be
binding and conclusive upon us, upon the
government, upon the accused and upon all
the world. If he should be convicted no
decision Of ours could rescue him out of the
hands of the law. If he is acquitted our
belief in his innocence will be of no conse-
quence. If we anticipate the trial in the
civil court our Judgment, whether for the
accused or against him, will have, and 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 JUS
tice. On the other hand, in 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. l do not propose to postpone in
definitely, but simply adjourn from day to
day, until the evidence upon the subject of
our inquiry shall receive that definite and
conclusive shape which will be impressed
upon it by verdict of the jury, or until
our action, having been referred to the
War Department, with our opinion that
our proceeding should be stayed during
the proceedings of the court of law, shall
have been confirmed. In case of acquittal
by the civil court, the functions of this
Court will not necessarily have terminated
The accused may be pronounced innocent Of
any crime against the statute and yet be
guilty Of some act which the military law
might punish by expulsion from the army.
In case Of acquittal he may insist upon show
ing to Us that he has done nothing inconsist-
ent with the conduct Of an officer and gentle
man as the article of war runs, but the great
and important question is, Guilty or not in
and form, as he stands indicted and
this can be legally answered only hv n inrv