The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-02-14
The BabcocIk Trial.

ST. LOUIS, February II. = Upon tn
opening OF the Babcock trial this morninI
the cros.examinati6n Of ]. W. Douglass
e1JCommiEsioner Of Internal Revenue
was completed in few unimportan
questions.
On the redirect, the District Attornc,
presented an affidavit, purporting to b
charges preferred in 1873, by Lindsay
Murdoch, a Collector OF Internal Revenue
in Southeast Missouri. The charges
were against John A. Joyce and Johr
Mcdonald, respectively Revenue Agen
and Supervisor. The envelope was en-
dorsed by 9. @. sniffen, the President
Private Secretary, showing that 1t hat
been received at the Executive Mansion
and referred to the Treasury Department
,Another Endorsement showed the refer
ence to the Commissioner OF Interna
Revenue. Mr.. Douglass could not testify
that he had seen the affidavit in his Office
The District Attorney said he proposed
to read the affidavit, showing that, il
1873, charges against Joyce and McDon
aid had been sent TO the Executive Man
sion and had gone through the depart
ments. The court only allowed the wit
ness to testify that the Endorsements
showed that such charges had been re
ceived and filed. They were not read.
Nearly the entire morning session wa'
taken up in trying to trace through tele
graph clerks OF this city and Washington
and also by the door-keepers and mes
sengers OF the Executive Mansion, Ger
tain kilograms, not yet admitted, and tt
prove that they were received and SEN
back and forth between Joyce and Nc
Donald here, and General Babcock, in
Washington Finally the defense waived
this proof, rs to one dispatch, and allow
ed the following, admitted to be in Gen
Babcock's handwriting, to be read:
"WAsH1NoroN, D. c., Dec. 1S, 1874.
"Geneal John DC Donald, 81. Louis, NO.:
IT succeeded. They will not go. Twill
write you. "SYLPH."
Before this was read Judge Porter an.
hounced that he proposed to make a
lengthy legal argument against the ad'
mission Of the other kilograms, and per.
haps they might wish TO include this
@Sylph" dispatch In those objected to-
The defense wished 10 reserve that point
Deputy Commissioner Rogers was
called, and testified: had conversa
ton with General Babcock in regard to
the transfer Of revenue agents. Babcock
said he had heard that Mr.. Douglass was
about to issue an order directing n trans.
fer OF agents. l told him the order had
that morning been issued. He expressed
his regret, sit would bring q political
pressure on Douglass, and he would be
forced to revoke the order, and that
would work disastrously to him, as
Douglass was at that time spoken OF as 0
candidate for the Court OF Claims. There
would be more or less odium on him
General Babcock) on account Of the
failure Of the enterprise, when the order
was revoked. That interview came
about by messenger bringing ME note
or verbal communication from General
Babcock. | had no previous convarsa'
tion with him on the matter. did speak
to him before about the Judgeship OF the
Court Of Claims. There was not n word
said in the conversation with General
Babcock at his house in regard TO break.
ing up the frauds here. Douglass. was
not appointed Judge Of the Court .ol
Claims, for there was no vacancy. l do
not know that the revoking OF the order
changing supervision had cast such odium
on Mr.. Douglass that he was not appoint.
ed. In the conversation with General
Babcock I told him l should report the
interview to Mr.. Douglass.
Oncross-examinatio the witness said
I had two interviews with General Bah
cock, the frat Of which sought myself.
Ny ulterior object was to promote the
interest Of Mr.. Douglass in connection
with the Judgeship OF the Court Of
Claims, thinking, no doubt I might get
the position held by him as Commission
er. General Babcock expressed great
friendship for Mr.. Douglass. do not
know OF any influence brought to bear,
except from rumor, to have the order
transferring the Supervisors revoked. l
think 1 made application by letter to
General Mcdonald to secure his assist.
ance. Ihad no suspicious Of HIM at that
time. The revoking Of the order by the
President would create an impression
that Mr.. Douglass was rebuked. The
leading object Of General Babcock was
Judge Douglass interest, although he
spoke Of one more object, viz: saving the
President from being annoyed.
The opposition Of the defense to the ad-
mission OF the dispatches alleged to have
passed between Joyce, Mcdonald and
Babcock was carried 10 the utmost ex-
tremity. They would admit nothing the
clear proof Of which could not be obtain
ed. They required not only proof Of the
authorship and transmission by telegram,
but that the dispatches were actually
placed into the hands OF the persons to
who they were addressed. So far the
prosecution have satisfied the defense on
iy in one instance-that Of the "sylph'
telegram given above The defense also
objected TO the relevancy OF these dis.
patches, and stated that they would argue
their objections at considerable length.
and with this view they requested the
prosecution to group all their dispatches
together, that argument might be made
at one time rather than on each dispatch
when offered. The dispatch which met
the most determined and persistent op-
position Is the one sent fronst. Louis,
December s, 1874, to General Babcock, at
Washington, signed a." and admit
ted to be Joyce's handwriting, but it was
not read, and, therefore, its contents are
not known outside the counsel. The dis
patch was traced into the hands OF George
5. Joyce, doorkeeper at the Secretary 8
Office, Executive Mansion, Washington,
who receiptcd for it, but as Joyce died
some months ago, there is no positive
proof that General Babcock ever read it.
Other dispatches were traced in like man.
ner to doorkcepers or others, who receipt.
edfor them, but these persons were placed
on the stand, and testified to receipting
for them, us shown by the receipt books Of
the Telegraph company, could not identi-
fy or swear to the actual delivery Of any
particular dispatch to the person to
whom Il was addressed.
Judge Dillon made partial ruling on
this question, taking the same ground he
did the other day when deciding about
the admission Of the testimony OF Everest
regarding the mailing Of letters to Bah
cocl. and Avery with money mclean req