New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-02-09

after which Judge Dillon said that the Court would not
positively determine then whether the pleader has con-
fined himself the particular and specific tax OF 20 cents
per gallon as that tax not imposed until 1877 III
may that the cannot show what ranspred
prior to that time, If what done before was
simply continued acts 1t does not follow that II is IN
competent to show what the frame structure etc., was
Of the who conspiracy. The Court would decide upon
the admission OF the question hereafter The witness
might answer the question =.
Ihe witness then began to speak about Mr.. Megrue,
when the defense objected and he was Withdrawn.
Mr. Thompson, q Gister, then called 10 tue stand
He gave history of his connection with the rlng ex
eS has Ssen ne stated times Before
the examination of this witness the defense oecteu 10
all tho nSt dFG S SSss To-
mony to establish the existence OF conspiracy might Ne
given and the witness gave toierapy iui account vi
the ring aud its operations.
PECULARITIES OF THE BABCOCK CASE.
THE TESTIMONY IN MKEE's CASE ORAL, IN THIS
ONE MAINLY DoCUMENTARY-THE CONSPIRACY
ADMITTED IN M'KEE's CAsE-BABCOCK's CoUN-
Sell IGNORE 1T.
IRON A SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBuNE.l
ST. LOUIS, Feb. SIT may be worth while
TO indicate briefly the relation which Gen Babcocks trial
bears to which have preceded it, and the inquiry 10
perhaps the pertinent considering the many theo
res which have been propouDded within day or Two
and are still rife the probable influence and bearing
which the conviction OF Mckee and the confession OF
Mcguire may have its result This influence, II
seems, has been exaggerated. The case OF Gen
Babcock lie radically different from the Others
and requires radically different conduct on both sides
In the case Of Mckee not document OF Importance was
introduced evidence but the verdict turned upon the
credibility Of oral testimony, OF his receipt OF
money and OF his confession of Megrues power
to indict him On the other hand, the evidence
In Gen. Babcock's case is confessed 10 be mainly
documentary. 1t consists of letters and kilograms
from Cen Babcock members Of the Ring, prporting
to give information OF the movements OF Revenue officers
al Washn gton and Orrespondng letters and kilograms
asking for the information from the members OF the Rng
10 Gen Babcook These letters and kilograms II will lie
necessary for the prosecution 10 connect with the pr
poses and dOiDgs OF the Ring and the disconnecnhs
them with those purposes and doings VIII be the
task Of the defence. The contest Is not unequal,
despite energy OF Col Dyers and ,te ability OF Col
Brosdhead. The telegram of Gen Babeock was not to
be accounted very good evidence II evidence at ALL and
those from him. ii is feared by those lsast sangune
among the prosecute may have just enough doubtful
sgneation attached TO them by the efforts OF counsel
to prevent the jurors making their minds beyond the
shadow OF q doubt.
Another anticipated distinction between McKees case
and Babcocks will be the attitude assumed toward the
Ring itself by the accused In the former not only no
impeachment was raised by the counsel for the defense in
establishing the existence of the Ring but every assist
ance was rendered the prosecution In making Ito mem
bers odious by Mr. Voorhees, laundering nveetives On
the other hand II is quite possible that Gen BabcOeks
interest will induce his counsel utterly 70
ignore the existence Of any such combine
ton To the lay mind, generally, such a
policy must seem futile while TO the St Louis lay mind
1t seems OF itself almost proyOcation enough for indic
nen said too and perhaps there IL ground for the
ruTnOr that the defense of Gen Babcock VIII be OF such
character mainly TO be presented TO the court and
not to the jury Under all and conjectures
q no Gnvn rrntuput aag
Of physician who has made diagnosis with which he
is completely satisfied, and who has no reason to Tear
any untowsrd results from his treatment
Ftzroy was then recalled and Col Dyer asked him II
McGrue paid him any money.
Mr.. st0rrs objected 10 anything more pertaining to
what he called the Megrue conspiracy.
long argument ensued, during which Judge Porter
intarruI,ted Col. Broadhead and stated that the
question IL whether the prosecution intend 10 con
meet the defendant with the conspiracy OF 1871.
He said 1t Is openly avowed, In deliberate
argument by the Government that there was conspr-
acy in 1871 which ended IN 1872. The man who organ
lied II left 1t and away aud the effort Is to connect
the defendant with It, lie submitted that the prosecu-
ton cannot such 70 the connection
of the defendant with this conspiracy.
Mr. Broadh ad replied that the prosecution does not
admit there was q conspiracy beginning In 1871 ana
ending in 1872. 1t continuous from 1871 to 1879,
when the strong arm OF the Government stopped IT, The
prosecution does claim that the defendant was con-
nected with the conspiracy in 1871.
Mr. Porter ia Id lie glad the gentleman 40 frankly
declared that Gen. BabcOck not connected with the
Megrue conspiracy but is It fair for the Cover ment TO
turn an Indictment charging intention 10 make Illicit
Spirits In 1874 into to back to conspiracy
with when IL 10 admitted he had connection In order
~ convict him.
The Court said:
Az we understand It. the inquiry Of the witness In as 10
what took place in 1872, and IL objected to on te
ground that the conspiracy OF 1872 ended III that year
charged in the Indictment Counsel stated in
the opening that the conspiracy with which
the defendant IL alleged TO have been connected,
menced in 1871 and extended to 1875. Col broadhead
says the Government has no evidence 10 show the com
plcity Of the defendant in 1871 or 1872 IL II
fact that conspiracy ended IN 1872 should hold
irrelevant admit anything further concerning that
time, but IL not admitted that the conspiracy
ended then Mr.. Thompson used language W ich
seems to intimate that tao conspiracy ended thcn but
that is a view of II from his standpoint Al present we
think YOU had better direct your attention not 30 ucn
10 tine piracy In 1871 and 1872 IA 10 1873 and 1874
III we can the all In that the conspiracy
in ls7l and 1872 not part OF the conspiracy alleged
in the Indictment, and that the defendant Is not
connected with the conspiracy In 1871 and 1872 then
the testimony already presented AUD rule II
out.
The Court then adjourned The Hon. +. c. Breasey
Of Washington, Of Gen Babcock's counsel has been
30 ndsposed since his arrival here that he has not ap