The Rutland weekly globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-02-11
The Babcock Trial.
Very respectfully,
WILLIAM ORION.

d. LOUIS, req. III.
The witness also explained what is known
among revenue officers as "Form No. 90"
and told how the disposition of illicit
whisky was covered at rectifying houses.
Bassett was followed by Abjah NJ.
Everest, who testified that he became col
lector for the ring in August 1874 and con-
tinued to act as such until the seizures IN
May 1870. The collections during that
time ran as follows each week. Ulric's dis
tillery, SIS to $2,7OO; Bingham, So. 900 to
$4,000 Jonett's, $4,000 to $ll,0 Cn; Be-
Wis & Prayers, 81, 900 to $2,700. Coning
down to the spring of 1875, either late in
February or early in March, Everest said
Joyce once sent him to the sub-treasury
with package of $1,000 in small bills to
get two $500 bills. He brought them back
and Joyce put them in an envelope and
told him to take them across the street and
put them III letter box. Witness said he
did so. lie was then asked if he had OBJ
served the directions on the letter.
Before he could answer the defense in
terposed an objection, asserting that the
prosecution was now trying to show that
Babcock's name was on one of the letters
and that the evidence was not competent
An argument ensued.
Judge Krum said This evidence is
competent because it is presumptive, and
is intended TO show that the envelopes or
ono of them waS addraooad 10 Tho doeo,,1
ant. AT this stage of the case it is intend
ed to establish the conspiracy between the
parties at st. Louis and the defendant 1t
is the connecting link in the theory of the
| prosecution. Thus far the case is barren
in 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 con-
flaming money from the conspirators. No
such presumption can arise now the evil
dence of the witness has in fact no rele-
vancy to the question because there is no
evidence to follow to show that the de-
PENDANT ever received the envelope, even if
they were deposited in the mail box there
is not scintilla of evidence before your
honor or the jury to show thus far that the
defendant ever had any connection with
the ring in st. Louis, and therefore there
can be no presumptive evidence that he
ever received the envelope.
Judge Porter-followed also, arguing the
irrelevancy of testimony.
Col. Broadhead for the government, said
it is not question as TO the conclusiveness
as to testimony, but as to the competency,
and that is all we claim for 1t. We claim
| that it is competent to show to the Jury
whether or not Gen. Babcock was men,
Der OF the conspiracy. We don't say that
1t is conclusive as to that point. We don't
say that this is all the evidence we have to
submit on that point, but we must make O
start and introduce part of the testimony
here and and part there to establish the
charge. No proposition In the law of ev.
idence is more thoroughly established than
that jury or any other tribunal may infer
from one fact the existence of another fact.
Mr. Storrs gave pretty much the same
Argument as Mr.. Porter, and added, there
is no evidence thus far to show that the
money was placed in those envelopes
Might there not been dexterous manipu
lation by which the witness was induced tC
believe the money was put in the envelope
but which in fact might have slipped into
Joyce's pocket or elsewhere There Il
utter absence of proof to show that thu
money was ever sent for a corrupt purpose
Men cannot be conjectured into the gal
lows, or guessed into the penitentiary
The pivotal question is, does the deposit o
this envelope into the mail box prove tina
It was ever received
Judge Dillon-I understand that tn,
prosecution hold that the deposit of tn,
letter into the mail box addressed to per
son raises the presumption that the lette
reached its destination.
Judge Storrs-That lie what they claim
hut we deny there is any local nI1surnV''''
Judge Dillon-In order to have this pro
perry put to the jury would ask the wit
ness were there two envelopes.
Witness-Yes, sir.
Judge Dillon-Were they prepaidp
Y Witness-Yes, sir.
Judge Dillon-You say you don't know
whether they contained letters or not