Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-02-18

heNe rgmtmbered II
&. Did General Babcock, 80 FAR as y1
knoW, ever seek IN any way 70 infiuen|
your aciiou with n far,frice 10 anv fnvesfie|
t'rn 81 q EGGS whisky frauds in 81. Louis
neIt. lOhJecied 10 a. immatcTisl. /
- 80 sl 1oa lncompeteutl A. he did nd
o. -oiy ] ight state right here that I Il
m eEnbrr but one instance 81 hfs ever IA ~ i
- me az al shout the matter az fnvestie|
.ion' EXCERPT since be has been indicted al
then II was simply 60 say 10 me thai he M 4
asked Mr.. Douglass why m was fhaf 49,
ureatei. ed al their officials. Es though md
were dishonest persons. by Sefsitng Spies
watch them, and asking why they could I'd
make inspections somewhat rs thev do
the army. Send a man Of character IN fbe|
distileries and take their books and make
report that could be relied On. believe ~
a. simply told me that he hsd said this
MT. douglass. Answer objected by rroj
cniloh as immaterisl aud incompetent
and Nituessl
q, =. DO you remember the Circumstance
tse PRONUNCIATION OF any order TRANSFERRED
ke various supervisors from their own
othtf olStrlctss same objection As Ia nr|
vio0s qucsiion.l A. co.
q. Alter the order had been finally tgSu|
were any efforts made 10 induce Won 10 sSire|
lts revocation "a suspeLsion2 same obI9
lion rs 10 The prevlous question: A. Nd
strenuous efforts were maze.
q Were sucn Efforts made by prOnine|
public meLg same objection as L. preyio|
question: a. They were.
. Did you resist tho pressure that vi
made upon you Tor the revocation
suppress ion OF the onier. aud m Won mail
decided 10 direct the revocation OF thaf 81
Ger. VIII 1ou please state why you were ii
oCced 10 DO 30, ald b. whom lOhiectel
a. imrnattTiai, Irrelevant and inC Dtnpetenl
a. / resisted The Effort 10 have the o4sier 4
Noked until 1 became convinced that
should lie revoked or suspended in the inte|
est OF detecting frauds thai had already b.
admitted. IN a conversation with Supery|
fffFH NrFag - a aa
OF mat order was Ia detect frauds thar lad
already been committed he thought al won
fail. he said This order went into effect I
l5th OF February, this was Ina January Wild
We were TALKING; that 10 gave the DISTILLED
who had been defraudlug the Treasury neal
~ three weeks notice % get their houses
oruer and he prepared Ia receive the new Il
perElsoIi that the new supervisor wou|
probably 20 into the district where fran|
might have been committed. and he wou|
ma oNerythilg I'm good order. and would
report; that the order might possibly AL
probably would result IN stopping the fraud
Al least for time, but would not lead 20 I'd
detection OF those that had already nd
committed. lie said Ii the order was revokd
~ would be looked upon as n trlumnh \
those who mad been delrauding tho TreaSur|
* would throw them OF their guard, and VI
could then send the special agents OF N
Treasury out ID the suspected distillerid
We could send good men. As one snch i
mentioned Mr.. Brooks. He said they cou|
before they would be aware OF 10 their wal
would be discovered. the proofs would he 4
complete, and then they cOul 4 seize their adj
tilleTies ana prosecute them. / was so co1l
Gent that his argument was good, aud thl
X was IN the interest OF Furnishing frauds thl
This order should be suspended that told nj
should suspend II Immediately without AL
further consultation with anybody. I eal
the directions FOR the suspension of the ord
making the transfers; my recollection Is Ind
i wrote the direction Tor the order on "A cad
win pencil; certainly before leaving mi
Office hat afternoon, and on that the ord|
Went 70 the treasury signed by one OF nj
secretaries. Counsel for The prosecution o|
lects 10 all conversation with SupervIsl
Tuition, and 10 the statement OF The cOntef|
OF any written document
g. Did Cereal BabcOck ever ia any wal
directly or indirectly. seem 10 Influence vol
action I'm reference TO that order? lObjsctl
10 Dy Tie prosecution a. iTlmaterial and /
rcievant) A. Don't think he ever did.
don't remember him ever speaking TO NJ
about IL or exhibiting any Interest ia 4
matter.
q. Al the time the court OF inquiry wi
called AZ General BaboOck's request was
rot understood by yourself, aad, 20 far
you know, by him, that no Indictment
would be found against hlm2 II SO, why III
you 50 understand objected 10 a. iInmat|
rial, Irrelevant. and Incompetent A. y
Indictment had been found against him.
supposed none would toe, because I undd
stood from the Attorney General that I'll
grand jury, which was then in session. wou|
adjourn In day or two. That was the On|
course left 10 him then, apparently. At N
time he maoe the request. Counsel ID
the prosecution objected Ia statements or ii
formation derived from the Attorney Gel
efal)
q. Was not that court called because
was supposed that Gen. Babcock could nav
no other way OF vindicating himself col
lected 10 by the prosecution as leading al
lDcompetent.D a. = so understood.
%. In what manner, as regards the publ
interests and as evIncing his fidelity and Id
tegrity, has he performed his duties az yo1
private secretary? (Same objection as 10 I'd
previous question: A. Always 10 my entil
and fail satisfaction.
q. Have You In any form observed d
learned anything in connection with Gel
Babcocks conduct which has tended TO al
minish your confidence In his fidelity al
integrity, and rs that confidence in his fide|
ity and Integrity still unimpaired and und|
minished? (Same objection as tn e precedirl
question: A. i always had great confidend
In bis integrity and his efficiency, and as yl
my confidence In him is unshaken. i hsJ
never learned anything that would shat
that confidence.
THE DEFENCE CLOSE THEIR CASE.
Alter reading tie deposition, Mr. Stord
offered recommendations in favor of the ad
pointment OF General Mcdonald as supe7
visor OF this district, bat the court rule|
them out, and The defence closed their cas|
AdiOurnei