Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1876-04-07
00.QQliilIuiil,gttol1 yo}rtna'>
WILMINGTON, N. c..
FRIDAY, APRIL z, 1876.
,rzzE, LATEST OGsCLOSUKE AT
WARRINGTON.

tration. The acquittai Of Bahcock was
= result which the country was not
prepared to expect. There Was 10 one
SO blinded as not % be able to undef--
stand that this result was brought
about by the most nefarions produces
Rnt inst how the thing was accom-
plished continued to be q mystery uni
the witness Bell was placed upon the
stand. and was examined ~ MF'
,,I,.,.ar,s CON nliotee. Then "the ways
that were dark we're suddenly brought
into the claring Ii lit Of day, ard the
tricks that had not been in vain Tor
the temporary relief of Babcock MAJ
their little peculiarities explained. Inc
New York EUenjng Post THINKS 'hiS
cxnosure Of the conspiracy to acquiI
Rabcock is the .'most unkindeSt c 1t OF
all " The Post is Republican to the
core. but its editor, the Veneraole
William Cullen Bryant, is ANXIOUS 10
see this matter investigated. Here Is
what that paper says:
s'If General Babccck does not ae-
nand a court of inquiry into his con
duct as private secretary OF the ffeSi-
dent honorable officers of the army
owe It to themselves and to the service
to insist upon a military investigation
The power of the civil courts has oeen
exhausted in the case. Babcock was
NOT legally convicted at ST. Louis, but
neither was he acquitted in the broader
sense. Even those persons Who acqui-
esced in the verdict Of the jury De-
Iioved that there we're so many facts
which needed explanation that bao-
cock ought not to delay to secure
rehearing Of the case, and II poss'ole
q vindication before a tribunal "hlch
vonld not be restricted by the rlgid
tecbnicaIities of civil court. Since
then further and injurious facts nave
baen disclosed. The Attorney General
has accused Babcock, in ettect' ol
stealing a confidential Official oocu-
ment. and publishing it with vie" 70
inAuance the result Of his own trial.
Tho matter certainly needs to be ex-
nIained. Still more imperatlVely IS al
exclamation demanded Of the story
told yesterday by @. s. DeN 10 MI
Clvmer's committee.
In substance this witness testlneo
that he was employed by BaocockS
friend and fellow secretary, by one
Bradford. Babcock's agent and counsel
and brother-in-law OF that rather
notorious. than eminent CITIZEN
Of Washington, BOSS" Shepherd
m "Iook into the hands Of DIS
trjct Attorney Dyer at st. Louis
He was instructed to find out what eV-
idence there was against BabHock, TO
steal the Geographic dispatches ana
ofher troublesome do 'uments' ana
either to destroy them Of to deliver
them 70 Babcocll and his counsel.
RaII SAWS that he undertook the work
in good faith, believing Babcock to be
innocent. but that afterward, bec0m-
inc convinced that BabcOck was gull'-
tv. he resolved to go 10 further With
it. revealed the plot to District Attor
ney Dyer aud put that officer on MS
guard against the man Sherman VINO
is believed to have gone to 81 Louis
on similar errand.
It is scarcely necessary now 10 ln-
ouire closely into tho character or
+rre+vorthiness Of this witness. HIS
story is circumstantial and straight
forward, and there IS apparent no
motive OH his part o what was sure 10
i've DANGEROUS fabrication If 1t was
one. That, however, IS not "os'h
while to speculate about. Ii the story
is wholly unfounded very few
words from Mr.. Dyer will destroy 1t
and the charf cter of the witness to-
oether. II Mr. Dyer confirms the
story, there is before Babcock only
tho alternative Of confession or an ex-
nIanation more satisfactory than he
has vet offered for any OF his susp1-
cious proceedings.
The testimony touches President
Grant. Bell says that the President
also sent him upon mission to 81.
Louis to find out the facts IN the Wills
XIV cases, and to ascertain whether
Babcock was really guilty as charged
or innocent as the President belleVed.
Bell had been a scout or spy for Gen
eral Grant during the war, and the
President regarded him as fit person
to execute the delicate trust contlded
to him. This was an extraordinary
truly, but perhaps not
more so than some other illustrations
of the application of military methods
to civil administration. Bell docs not
pretend that he was Instructed by the
President to help Babcock IN the trial;
he was TO perform the purely judicial
and impartial functions OF dlslnter-
ested seeker after truth. Perhaps no
other President would thus have set
aside the ordinary machinery OF Justice
and have conducted the case as II 1t
were a flank movement III mliltafy
campaign; but there is nothing I'M
probable in the assertion that Presl-
dent Grant did just such thing. 1t
another example OF his SIN
yular insensibility to the properties OF
mis- position and his remarkable ID
difference to the obligations OF a civil
ruler"
This is just about as plain talk of
President Grant and his pets as any |
journal can be guilty OF. |
IF Mr.. Dyer confirms the story (of
BelD there is before Babcock only the
lternative of confession or an ezpla-
nation more satisfactory than he has
vet offered for any of his suspicious
proceeding" But Mr.. Dyer has con-
irmed the story of Bell. Since the
above extract was printed, MIR. Dyer
,as been before the War Department |