The New York herald., 1876-01-26
General Babcock,s Case.


We cheerfully publish the letter addressed
to us by Major Gardner. of West Point, who
was appointed judge advocate for the court
of inquiry to investigate the case of General
Babcock We do not discover that he inn
pugns the substantial accuracy of the state
ments of our Occasional Washington Core
spondent to whom he replies, except in
single particular The significant and sug-
gestive order Of the facts as unfolded by that
correspondent remains unchalenged, there
being no question that they followed one
another in the same succession and at the
same dates which he gave. That is
to say, Mr.. Henderson's speech was de-
bill" was found against Babcock by the
Grand Jury; its substance was at once spread
all over the country by the press no mark
of censure was meanwhile visited upon its
author, but in the very hour that the de-
spatch announcing the indictment was re-
ceived at Washington q swift direction went
back to st. Louis that Mr. Henderson's ser
vices were no longer needed. In the mean
time-that is between the date of the speech
and the date of the indictment-a court of
inquiry had been ordered at General Bah
cocks request, its members had assembled at
Chicago and its Judge Advocate had called
on District Attorney Dyer for the evidence
against the inculpated officer. No part of this
chain of circumstances is contested by Major
Gardner. either as respects the truth of the
facts or the order of the dates.
1t is true however, as Major Gardner
conclusively shows, that our correspondent
was misinformed as to the tone Of the
Judge Advocates despatch to st. Louis call
ing for the evidence. Our correspondent
did not however, profess to give exact tran
scripts of any of the dispatches, but only
their substance, and he was quite in error as
to the spirit and temper of that Of Judge Ad-
vocate Gardner to District Attorney Dyer
1t was by no means a curt, peremptory de-
mand. On the contrary, 1t observed all the
forms of considerate, official decorum, alike
in substance and language, and, with a copy
of it before us, we are bound to say that it is
in no respect open to just criticism.
Had Major Gardner confined his letter to
the rectifcation of this mistake as to his own
personal and official conduct we would have
made no remarks on his letter beyond giving
him the full advantage of the correction.
But as he goes somewhat at large into dis
cussion of the relation of the court of inquiry
to the civil prosecution we think it right
briefly to review his positions. He main
tains that, up to the finding of the indict-
ment there was no sort of relation between
the court of inquiry and the proceedings
before the Grand Jury. This is true enough
as respects the official action of the military
court itself, but not true in any other sense.
Neither General Babcock, who demanded the
court of inquiry, nor the President, who
ordered it, could have had any doubt that
an indictment was probable, or at least would
be- attempted, after the inculpations con-
tanned in Mr.. Henderson's address to the
Jury 1t was what the whole country ex-
pected, and on reasonable grounds ; for the
prosecuting officers would have been mex
cusably derelict if they had not pressed an
investigation. 1t was in the face of the
moral certainty that General Babcock's al
legged connection with the whiskey frauds
would be laid before the Grand Jury at st.
Louis that he made haste to ask, and the
President promptly granted, court of in
quiry. The country could not fail to regard
it as an indelicate proceeding, liable to
be construed as ON attempt to fore
stall and head off the action of the
Grand Jury. 1t is true that it could not
have had that legal effect, but it tended to
bring relaxing moral influence to bear on
the Grand Jury and the prosecuting officers.
If the Judge Advocates call on the District
Attorney for the evidence had been complied
with the evidence would have been with
drawn from the Grand Jury, and, so long as
it remained in possession of the military
court the proceedings against General Bah
cock in the criminal court would have been
arrested and blocked. 1t will be difficult to
convince the public that result of this kind
was not in the contemplation of General
Babcock when he demanded a court of in
quiry in the face of an impending indict-
ment.