The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1876-02-11
BABCOCK'S TRIAL.
Testimony duplicating ttne Ac-
CUSed.

to-day, the first witness was VIM. j. Bassett,
a gauger, whose testimony, however, did not
mplicate Babcock. He was followed by Abb
Jan M; Everest, who testified that he became
the collector for the ring in August, 1874, and
continued to act as such until the seizures in
May, 1875. Everest said Joyce once sent him
to the sub-treasury with package of $1,000 in
small bills, to get two $500 bills. He brough
them back and Joyce put them in an envelope
and told him to take them across the street
and put them in the letter box. Witness said
he did so. He was then asked if he had OBJ
served the directions on the letters Before he
could answer, the defence interposed an objec-
ton, claiming that the prosecution were now
trying to show that Babcock's name was on
| one of the letters, and the evidence was not
competent. A long argument ensued,
The defence denied the competency of the
evidence because, said Judge Krum, there is no
evidence to follow to show that the defendant
ever received the envelopes, even if they were
deposited in the mail box.
Judge Porter also of the counsel, stated that
the rule of the law to be that where there is a
conspiracy that conspiracy can be proved by
the confessions of the conspirators themselves
but the connection of another party to the con-
spjracy must be shown by eXtrinsic evidence.
If, said Judge Porter, they had found the let
ter in the possession of Gen. Babcock they
would not charge him with a knowledge of its
contents unless he acted on it, but this is not
the case Ii is letter we never saw nor heard
of until whe heard these rumors here about it.
When it is made an act of Gen. Babcock it
must be proved by some other act of his ante
cedent to the time it was sent.
Col sBroadhead, for the government, claim
ed that it was competent TO show the jury
whether or not Gen. Babcock was member Of
the conspiracy, We don't say, continued Col.
Broadhead, that it is conclusive as to that point
We don't say this is all the evidence we have to
submit on that point, but We must make a
start and introduce part of the testimony here
and mart there tO establish tho obor No
proposition in the law of evidence is more thor
oughly established than that jury or any 9TH
er tribunal may infer from one fact the exis
tence of another.
A. r, storrs gave pretty much the same
argument as Judge Porter, and added, "There
Is no evidence thus far to show that money was
ever placed in those envelopes"
The Court (Judge Dillon) then asked few
questions of witness, whose answers showed
that there were two envelopes, andithere were
prepaid, and the witness dropped them into the
mail box, saw only the paper and not the writ
ing, and could not say definitely that they were
two letters. Court took recess, and on re-
assembling, Judge Dillon, speaking for himself
and Judge Treat, ruled the evidence admiss-
ble as tending to show that such letters reached
thelr destination and were received by the
persons to whom they were addressed. This is
not a conclusive presumption, and it does not
even create legal presumption that such let.
tiers were actually received. To show the
AcoCip1 VI suCu letlerS IdCC IN connection WIN
the other circumstances is to be referred to the
jury under appropriate Instructions as its value
will depend upon the circumstance of the par
ticular case.
Everest was then recalled and testified: Col.
Joyce handed me two envelopes and directed
me to put them in the letter-box, which l did.
Joyce was watching me from a window of his
office. was facing him. / could see him
watching me- Saw the directions on the en-
velopes; One was directed to "W. o. Avery,
Wask RgsoOc D. and the qtheE to General Gen
them had personal on the left hand corner.
They were ordinary envelopes and had no
printed matter on them or other directions
except what L have stated. They had postage
stamps on them. did not see any more that
day. left the city June 10, 1875, and went to
New York city, and from there to Liverpool. I
left Liverpool last Christmas and arrived in
New York on the 18th of January. 1 never
saw Gen. Babcock before this trial began.
Cross-examination by Mr.. Storrs The en-
velopes were on the table when L handed Col
Joyce the two five hundred dollar bills. then
sat down to his left. I was watching him
attentively. He first took 1.-THE two envelopes
up. Took the paper out of one of the envelopes
and put tie bill in.
1 did not see him put the other $500 bill in
the other envelope: 1 am not positive that he
did put it in. Whether it was the letter d.
rected to Gen. Babcock or to Mr.. Avery that he
put the bill in 1 can't say. When went to
LiVorpoOl uau no special business t1ere
except to get out of the way. 1 knew
that was in the whisky ring and wanted to
keep out of trouble. l went to London and
Paris after leaving Liverpool; then went to
Rome where received letter from my broth.
er to return home. He did not tell me it was
safe for me to come, and did not think it was
safe. | met Col. McFall when 1 landed in
New York. but the meeting was accidental.
From New York went to Philadelphia, where
l met District Attorney Dyer. He came to see
me. told him just what have testified to-
Told Col. Dyer since he came here what
would testify to on the stand. 1 told him
could not be positive which envelope saw
Joyce put the $500 into. There has been no
pressure to make me remember that there as
$500 bill placed in both envelopes. When I
was before the grand jury and on my direct
examination said that presumed the second
$500 bill was put in the other envelope as we'll
as in the one saw. do not know whether
have been indicted here or not. The papers say
L am. / made no enquiry about it. L have
never been arrested ON any Indictment. Can't
say why. There has been no understand g
or bargain about it. There has been no hin is
to me that [ would not be arrested have no
reliance that will be. 1 was before the grand
jury at the May term. Did not testify that L
knew nothing about the whisky frauds.
Henry P. Alexander, chief clerk in thesU. S.
sub-treasury in st. Louis testified to changing
a $1,000 bill, but did not think it was for
Everett
Edward P. Frazier detailed the operations of
the ring, but gave no evidence duplicating
Babcock. Adjourned.