, 1876-04-02
SEQUEL TO THE BABCoCK TRIAL

AAAo
Decidedly the most sensational Of al tha,
has been developed by the investigation into
the BABcooK caso is the testimony Of tho Wit
ness BELL before the Congressional Commit.
tee. It is also to be taken with moro grains
of allowance than the statement Of any other
witness. 1t ia not improbable that BELL,
having gained the Presidents confidence in
the War as spy, was by him commissioned,
as BELL states, to go to St. Louis and inves-
dgate the facts as to the guilt or innocence Of
BADcocK, and report the same to the Pres
ident, that he might act upon them. And
under the excitement attending that case,
and with he:repors circulated by BABcook
that the prosecution Was the result Of polit-
ical conspiracy, the President might natural
~ and properly have desired to be put in
possession Of the facts upon undoupted
authority. Certain it is that BELL did look
over the testimony against BADcooK in Dis
trict-Attorney D1ER's possession; and almost
equally certain does it appear, notwithstand-
ing A1r. SroRRs' denial, TINT the information
thus obtained by BELL was conveyed to the
defense, which goes q long way toward
explaining the readiness with which BAp-
COOKS counsel met the testimony against him
at the trial. And that readiness, it may be
remarked, was nowhere so conspicuous as in
the production Of the letter-carrier McGu1,
who spoiled the proof about the JoYcR letter
inclosing $500 to BABcocK BY testifying that
he (McGu1) returned that letter from q
street letter-box to JoroE. There is, in all
probability, deal OF. truth and q deal of
falsehood in Bz11's testimony. He mani
testify did steal the testimony Of The prosecu-
ton, and, in al probability, did sell it to the
defense. He was, in the current rasca1ly
phrase, ston the make" ready to betray
either aide or both, and concerned only to
get the most money for his villainy. His
original employment by the President, if as
BELL states he was employed, was neither
dishonest nor dishonorable. But the nse he
made Of that employment was rascally. The
public, however, is not concerned with
BELL 70 much as with the separation
of the truth from tbs falsehood in his
story, and in establishing through what
influence it was that he was enabled
10 carry out, SO far as it wes executed, his
rascally programme. His story, far as told,
is damaging only. to BABcooK. He Dn1)
xss 8 precious knave, as appears from his
own testimony, and while his services in the
umy may have been such es to impresu the
President with his Bn1s) kecnness and
'agacity, his very employment es scoutspy
xas such as could have inspired ittlo conf
lence in him. The question back of it all,
is, Whose influence was it that put |
lin in position whore he could steal the tes-
imony against BABcocK; and who planned |
he cunningly-dsviscd scheme by which he was
nabled to do it7 There is evidently large
ield ADMINISTRATION here. and one that cannot
'e too sharply explored, and it is to be trust !
d it will not be abandoned until the bottom |
acts are reached, and those guilty Of thus
;onspiring to defraud justice be brought to
prompt punishment. Nothing Gun bo taken
$ established by Bn1's testimony without
orro5oration but there Is manifest1y too
auch truth in it for his story to be dropped
ril it be satisfactorily established how much
+ it is true, and what facts there are connect
with the whols affair which have not bean
iscloaed by him.