The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-02-11
The Babcock Trial.


acting under instructions from superior
officers, he conniyed at frauds while al
Beyis & Frazier's rectifyiDg house, and
used TO find on Saturday evenings an en-
yelope in his overeoat pocket containing
from 500 10 $500.
Two whisky barrel heads, with the
gaugers' stamps upon them, were pro
duced in court, and the stub books from
which the stamps were taken. On COM
parison, it was shown that in each caSe
the stamp on the barrel registered the
contents as 46i proof gallons, while the
corresponding stub reported only five
pi oof gallons to the collector for taxa
tion.
The witness also explained what Is
known as "iorm 1922" and told how the
disposition Of Illicit whisky was covered
at the rectiiying house.
Bassett was followed on the stand by
Abiiah NJ. Everest, who testified that he be-
came collector for the ring in August
1874, ard acted Us such until the
seizures in May, 1875. The collections
during that time ran US follows each
week: Ulrich's distillery, 81, 900 to s., 900
Bingham's $500 10 81 800, Jenetts, 500
10 81, 100; Chouletan's, $500 to 81 900; Be.
Wis & Frazer's, $1,000 10 $500. Coming
down 10 the spring Of 1875, eithey late 10
February or early in March, Everest
said Joyce once sent him 10 the sub-treas.
ury with n package Of $1,000 in small
bills 10 get two Eve hundred dollar bills.
lie brought them back and Joyce put
them in envelopes and told him TO take
them over and put them. in the letter.
box. Witness said he did so, and was
asked il he observed the directions on
the letters. Before he could answer the
defense interpOsed an objection, claiming
that the prosecution VERIFYING to show
that Babcock's name was on one Of these
letters and that the evidence was not COM
peient.
Judge Krum said this evidence is in
competent because il is presumptive, and
is intended to show that the envelopes, or
ole oi the envelopes, was addressed to
the defendant. At this stage Of the case
il is intended to establish the conspiracy
between the parties at St. Louis and the
defendant. il 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 de-
fendant did receive letter containing
money from the conspirators. No such
presumption can arise now. The evil
dencc Of the witness has in fact no rCle.
vancy to the question, because there is
no evidence TO follow to show that the
defendant ever received the envelopes,
even il they were deposited in the mail.
box. There i. not scintilla Of evidence
before Your Honor or the jury TO show
thus far that the defendant ever had any
connection whatever with the ring in ST..
LOUIS, and therefore there can be no pre-.
sumptive evidence that he ever received
the envelope.
Judge Portcr-Will Your Honor allow
me to state specifically the grounds Of the
objection. The rule Of the law is this /:
"Thal where there is conspiracy, that
conspiracy can be proved by the confes-
lions ui the ConspiratOrs themselves, but
the connection Of another party TO the
conspiracy must bC shown by cxlraneOns
evidence" The declarations, written or
oral, Of conspirators cannot bind third
party. They cannot prove their acts by
another mans acts. No declaration oi
Joyce il evidence against Gen. Babcock.
learn from the opening remarks OF the
District Attorney that he proposes TO
show by the witness that Joyce wrote the
name oi General Babcock on this letter.
II joyce had said, 81 intend TO send this
money to Babcock, that evidence would
be inadnissable, but this evidence Ia only
written declaration Joyce is no agent
Of ours. lie ia not entitled TO act for Us,
and no net or declaration Of his can bind
us. They caunOt give secondary evidence
without proving the destruction Of the
primary evidence. The question Is, is
this competent evidence? II they had
found the letter in the possession OF Gen.
BabcOck, the Law would not charge him
with u knowledge Of its contents unless
he acted on it. But this is not the case.
It is letter we never saw, never heard
OF until we heard these rumOrs here
about il. When it is made an act OF Gen.
Babcock, it must he proved by some
other act OF his anteccdent to the time il
was sent. The evidence Is irrelevant on
It's face. There was only naked in.
closure. Would the mailing Of polluted
money TO Your Honor or TO myself make
us members OF the conspiracy? We
submit that il would not.
Col. Broadhcad, for the government,
said-lt is not question rs to the con-
clusiycness OF the testimony, but "a TO its
consistency, and that il all We claim for
| il. We claim that it is competent to show
TO the Jury whether or not Gen. Babcock
was a member Of the conspiracy. We
don't say that It il conclusive as TO thai
point: We don't say that this is all the
evidence We have 10 submit on 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 thorough
" established than that a jury, or any
other tribunal, may infer from one fac
the existence Oi another fact. Suppose
n murder has been committed in an or
Chard, and witness sees man leave tht
orchard with n gun on his shoulder abou
tue time Of the murder, and the gun haG
been discharged. That does not Prov
that the man committed the murder; !
does not prove that he discharged tn
gun. Yet the Court in the trial Of tn
case would tell the jury that they ma!
infer the existence OF another fact from
the one established. Thi. case is no cK
ceplion to that rule. We don't CLAIM
conclusive proof Of payment by III,
witness, hut only prcsnmptivc evidence
We net on presumption n great deal
Hardly n ease il tried in onr courts tha
the Jury isunt compelled to consider SOM
prcsnmpiivc fact. II the letter mention
ed was received by Gcn. Babcoch, vi
claim that il il more or lcss mn act con
Meeting him with this conspiracy.
". Il. St0rrs gave pretty much the sam,
argument ns Judge Porter, and adde,l
there j. no evidence thus far to show tina
the money was ever placed in these cnvc
lopcs. Might thcrcn have been deI
lrou5 manipulation through which tn
witness was induNd to believe that tn
money wa. put into the envelopes, bu
which In fact might have uasscd int