The New York herald., 1876-02-11
THE CORRUPT CONSPIRACY.
TO TUE sTRUGGLE-REAnrTANcEs TO BAB-
COCK AND AyERY-DEsPERATE EFFORTS TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE sUPERscRRTIoN
OF TWO LETTERS.

TO mailing two letters containing $500 each from Joyce
to Avery and Babcock Before Everest was allowed
state the directions these letters there long
and tedious argument the part Of the defence who
protested that il would be monstrous outrage upon
justice to allow Everest the addresses unless
II could first be proven that Babcock the
ter mailed TO him, and cited hundred authorities TO
prove that the mailing of letter gave not ground
for an intelligent conjecture Krum expressed it,
that 1t had been received or even expected This
sUPERFNE HARsPLITrrNG
called smile the faces OF many of the spectators
and one or two OF the jurors while Dyer and Brod-
head listened to II with broad grin, and even Judge
Dillon, who is seriousness ITSELF could sup
press certain twinkle in his eye and faint suspicion
OF smile First Krum worked himself into fever in
denouncng this dastardy ding the principles
of justice. Then Porter made elaborate speech of
threequarters Of hour and Storrs finished in an-
other hour by giving the prosecution the coup de grace
Judge Dillon paid the extraordinary compliment TO
Judge Porers reputation of stopping for the first time
in the Of the trial. the rocking OF his chair to
listen to his furious speech. Porter seemed TO be
highly indignant at the moral turptude of the prosccu-
ton in asking Everest to state the address Of letter
which Babcock was not proven to have received He
fairly Kissed forth every word His uplied right hand
quivercd with wrath, and every now and then came
ters clear enuncaton forms striking contrast to the
nasal drawl in which most Of the other counsel speak
WITNESS EVEREST.
Everest, who plays so important a role in this case
is rather heavy built man, of medium height with
sober, dark face framed in full beard and Of sanci-
monous expression and with small cunning eyes. He
looks just the kind of man who would say a prayer
while stabbing you in the heart His admission in his
that he actually saw Joyce only put
$500 bill the envelope and not the other was
considered by the defence great triumph of their
cause.
A GAuGER IN THE RING.
The first witness put upon the stand to-day was
William }. Basset gauger in the Ring. Bassett
testified to the operations which under his
servaton in 1874 and the of 1875 He acknowl-
edged that, acting under instructions from superior
officers he connved at frauds while at Bevs Frazer's
rectfying house and used to find Saturday evenings
an envelope IN his overcoat pocket containing from
500 TO 5000 Two whiskey barrel heads with the
gauger's stamps upon them were produced in court,
and the stub books from which the stamps taken.
on comparison IL was found that in each case the
stamp the barrel registered the contents 40 4
proof gallons, while the corresponding stub reported
only five proof gallons TO the collector for taxation.
The witness also explained what is known among the
revenue officials form l22 and told how the disposi-
ton of Illicit whiskey was covered at the rectiiyng
houses
EvERrsr's DISCLOSURES
Mr.. Basset was followed on the stand by Abijah NJ.
Everest who testified that he became the collector
the ''Ring in August, 1874 and continued to act as
such until the seizures in May 1875; the collections
during that time ran as follows each week :-Ulrics
dislery, 81 900 10 81 700 ngham $500 to 81 500;
Jonett's $500 to 81 l00 Bevs Frazer's, 81 600 to
So 100 coming down the spring OF 1875 either late
In February or early IN March Everest said Joyce
sent him to the Sub-Trcasury with package Of
81 900 small bills to get two $500 bills; he brought
them back, and Joyce put them in envelope and
told Everest TO take them the street and put
them IN the letter box. Witness SAID he did SO. Ho
then asked fhe had observed the directions the
letters
Before he could answer the defence nterposed an OBJ
lection claiming that the prosecution were trying
TO show that Babcocks name one Of the let
ters and that the evidence not competent
long argument ensued.
QUIBBLEs OF DEFENCE
Judge Krum SAID this evidence incompetent be-
cause il presumptve and is intended TO show that
the envelopes, of the envelopes addressed
TO the defendant Al this stage OF the case il is in
tended establish the conspiracy between the parties
at ST. Louis and the defendant. II is the connecting
link in the theory Of the prosecution. Thus far the
barron Ia evidence to- show that the defendant
had any connection with the conspiracy in ST. Louis
The naked question Is presented that the defendant
did receive a letter containing money from tho
conspirators. NO such presumption can arise now.
The evidence Of the witnesses has in fact no relevancy
TO the questions because there no evidence TO follow
to show that the defendant ever received the envel
ope, If IT, deposited in the mail box
There not a scinta Of evidence before Your Honor
or the Jury show thus far that the defendant ever
had any connection whatever with the ''Rngn In ST.
Louis and therefore. there be presumptve
evidence that he ever received the envelope.
THE QUESTION RELEVANCY
Judge Porcr-Will Your Honor allow to state
more specifically the grounds OF objection The rule
Of law is this that where there is conspiracy that
conspiracy be proved by the confessions OF the
cOnsprators themselves but the connection OF another
party TO the conspiracy must be shown by extrinsic
evidence. The declarations, written or oral, OF the
conspirators cannot bind a third party. They
cannot prove their acts another mans
acts No declaration of Joyce is evidence
against Babcock. l learn from the opening
remarks of the District Attorney that no proposes
show by the witness that Joyce wrote the name of Cen
QraI Ralc IN Z had said in.
tend to send this money to Babcock,n that evidence
would be inadmissbie; but this evidence is only
written declaration. Joyce is agent of ours, he is
not entitled to act for US, and no act or declaration OF
his can bind us They cannot give secondary evidence
without proving the destruction Of the primary evil
deuce The question is, Is this competent
evdenceP II they had found the letter
in the possession Of General Babcock the law
would not charge him with knowledge of its con-
tents unless he acted upon it. But this Is not the
case ii a letter saw, heard Of until
we heard these rumors here about IT, When It is
made act Of General Babcock must be proved by
some other act of his aDteccdcnt to the time 1t
sent Tho evidence is irrelevant on its face. There
mating Of polluted money TO Your Honor to myself
NIT that IL would not, and hold the testimony of
the witness to be totally irrelevant.
LETTER PREsUMPTIvE PROOF.
Colonel Brodhead, for the government, said II was
not question as to testimony but as TO competency
and that is all we claim for It. We claim that is
competent 20 show TO the jury whether or not General
Babcock was a member OF the conspiracy We don't
that this IS all the evidence have submit that
point but we must make start and introduce part Of
the testimony here and part there to establish the
charge. No proposition in the law of evidence is more
thoroughly established than that jury any other
tribunal may infer from fact the existence Of
another fact suppose a murder has been com
mitted ia orchard and a witness secs
man leave the orchard with gun on
his shoulder about the time Of the murder and the
gun had been discharged that does prove that the
man committed the murder it does not prove that he
discharged the gun yet the Court the trial Of the
case, would tell the jury that they may infer the
isence OF another fact from the established This
case exception to that rule We don't claim
elusive proof OF payment by the witness but only pre-
sumptivo evidence. We act on presumption great
deal hardly case Is tried IN that the jury
IS not compelled to consider some presumptvo fact
II the letter mentioned received by General Bah
cock claim that Is more or less connecting him with
this conspiracy.
A. X. Storrs gave pretty much the argun6nt as
Judge Porter and added There is evidence thus
far to show that money placed in those enve
opcs. Might there not have been a dextcrous manipu
laton by which the witness was induced 10 believe the
money put into the envelopes but which, in fact,