The Grange advance., 1875-12-15
with two trials at once. The injustice of this

with TWO trlais al once. Inc lnJusuce OF TINS
is manifest.
II presume from the nature OF the
case that the evidence is very vau-
minous, consisting OF records. papers
and oral testimony. Can we compel
the production OF these while they are wanted
for purpos~s Of the trial at St. Louis. Ger.
tainly not il the military be, as the constitu-
ties.
.'5hall we proceed without evidence and
give an opinion in ignorance of the facts. That
cannot he the wish Of anybody.
~ take it for grated that the trial at St.
Louis will be fair as well as Legal, and that the
2"as%enih Sery arah and MD justice of the ease will, ill.,
without. question, he binding and
and and on the accused, and on
all the world. If he should he convicted no
decision of ours could rescue him out OF
acquitted our belief in his Innocence will be Of
no consequence. If we anticipate the
trial in a civil court our
judgment, whether for the accused or against
him, will have or ought to hav. no effect on
the Jurors It cannot even be made known to
them, aud any attempt to influence them by
it would justly be regarded as an obstruction
of public justice.
'On the other hand his conviction there
would be conclusive evidence Of his guilt and
his acauittal will relieve him from the neces-
:ity ,Ss Of 9..o,d showing anything Gn but but
propose to postpone indefinitely, but simply
the subject Of our inquiry receives that definite
and conclusive shape which will be impressed
upon it hy the verdict Of q jury or until our
action, having been referred to
the War Department with our
opinion that our proceedings should be stayed
during the proceedings of the curt of laws
shall have been confirmed.
SIN case ofacquittal by the civil court the
functions OF this court will not necessarily
have terminated. The accused may be pro-
nounced innocent OF any crime against the
statute aud yet be guilty OF some act which
the military law might punish by expulsion
from the army. In case Of acquittal he may
nothing inconsistent with the conduct of an
officer and gentlemen, as the article Of war
runs.
"But the great and important question is
guilty or not in manner or form as he stands
indicted, and this can be legally answered only
by jury of his country" The Judge Advo,
cate then said, in substance, that the court had
not been fully organized, but he had received
q communication from Col. Babcock which he
! submitted to the court
| This communication requested the court to
adjourn tor the present in order to admit Of his
appearing III 81. Louis 10 answer there Tie
charges made against him by the st. Louis
grand jury.
In view OF this communication the Judge
Advocate suggested that the trial he postponed
for the present and that the ccur: commune
cate to President Grant the state of the case,
with the view that the court might adjourn to
meet again at call of the president Of the
court.
The room was then cleared of spectators for
consultation: and on reODeninQ the doors it
was announced that the court Would adjourn
from day to day until its action had been COM
municated to the War Department and an ad-
jou,nment was Immediately announced till
noon tomorrow.
Judge Advocate Gardiner endeavored to i'm
press upon the representatives Of the press
that the remarks of Gen. Hancock were not
the result OF any deliberations Of the court
However this may be, it is
| well known that Lieutenant General Sheridan
expressed similar views before the convening
| OF the court and held it would be much better
| for COL Babcock and all concerned for the
court to await the result ofthe examination be-
fore the civil court.