The New York herald., 1876-01-26
THE CASE OF GENERAL BABcoCK.

spondentn ia to-day's HERALD, seems to have fallel
into in reference the late Cour
OF Inquiry at Chicago called 70 investigate, under tho
statute the conduct OF Colonel O. e. Babcock Of the
Corps of Engineers in his capacity commissioned
officer Of the army Had your correspondent got his
socalcd facts all right should have been spared tn.
trouble Of this reply.
In the first place. the Hon. J. B. Henderson, assoc
ate OF the United States District Attorney st
in the recent trial of William O. Avery, made, in the
course OF his closing speech to the jury in that trial.
certain charges and accusations against Colonel Bah
cock, which published throughout the land.
am credibly informed that Colonel Babcock did what
was in his power toward reutng these accusations by
telegraphng request be called before the Grand
Jury and otherwise. At the time was so much en-
gagged in my professional occupations here to be
quite uniniormed OF these occurrences.
Failing IN other ways to obtain prompt hearing,
Colonel Babcock had the privilege accorded
him in section 1892 article u.s. Of the Revised Stat
utes Of the United States and demanded OF the Presi-
dent court OF inquiry This, after consultation in
Cabinet meeting was accorded him. and court was
detailed, consisting OF Lieutenant General Sheridan
Major General Hancock and Brgadier General Terry
all distinguished officers who had received the thanks
Of Congress for services TO the nation. detailed
Judge Advocate and receipt of the telegraphic
announcement, proceeded to Chicago.
Now observe the Court OF Inquiry had nothing what
TO do with proceedings before the Grand Jury OF
the United States District Court for the Eastern dis
trct Of Missouri, nor with any subsequent proceed
ings which might be had in the District Court itself
If Colonel Babcock had in any way violated a penal
statute of the United States, the proper tribunal 10
determine the question was the appropriate United
States District or Circuit Court
The Court OF Inquiry may be said to be an ''open"
grand jury and preliminary 10 possible trial by gen.
offence. Colonel Babcock's demand for court OF IN.
quiry was based on the reasoning that the accusations
made against him in the course Of Avery's trial
showed If true that he had been guilty Of conduct
becoming an officer and a gentleman, which is a
military offence punishable solely by dismissal from
the army This conduct might also be a violation OF
penal statute Of the United States, punishable by the
proper civil court OF criminal jurisdiction The laws
wisely provide against the dismissal from the army Of
commissioned officers unless pursuant TO special act
OF Congress or sentence OF general court martial for
military offence except in case of desertion There
arises from this one nconv and that is that
army officer might commit the crime say of burglary
and be tried by the State Court OF Oyer and Termner,
and sentenced to term OF years at hard labor
theess he would continue to be commissioned
officer until Congress should by special act dismiss
him the State authorities be induced to temporarily
turn him for trial by general court martial for
conduct unbecoming an. officer and gentleman,
that he could be dismissed from an honorable service
in order to undergo the convics punishment awarded
by the State court This dual jurisdiction to which
military men are responsible is recognized in decisions
OF the United States SupremeCourt.
If the Court of Inquiry had proceeded its invesga
tion would have been limited solely 10 the public
satons which the Hon. Mr.. Henderson had made in
the Avery trial The court had nothing whatever to do
with proceedings before the United States Grand jury
which secret and which might have had reference
to alleged tTansaoiiols of Colonel Babcock wholly d
terenl from those charged in the public speech OF Mr.
Henderson. As subsequently appeared, when an in
dictment was found, the Grand Jury brought in bill,
principally based on the Henderson charges
Suppose, however, That Colonel Babcock in his trial
before the United States Circuit Court shall be acquit
ted nevertheless although he may not have violated
an express penal statute his conduct may have so ap
preached such violation as to be conduct unDe
coming an officer and gentleman" in which suppos-
ha 1ahl tn al
court martial and 10 dismissal from the army.
is thus that the statutes make the supervision of
the conduct of the military officer very much greater
than The civil ofcers because under the charge Of
"conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman do
mesc and private transactions may be inquired INTO,
admittedly not violation oil penal statute Tho
duty of the Court Of Inquiry was consequently, simply
to ascertain, by evidence in a legal way whether there
was sufficient PROBABLE cause 10 induce belief that
Colonel Babcock had commiNed any statutory military
odense, cognizabe by general court martial, done
anything ''unoecoming an officer and gentleman" I"
Had the Grand Jury not found true BILL and the Court
OF Inquiry bad proceeded we may assume for
gument that facts might have been elected which
the Attorney General could have sent the record TO tho
District Attorney that the Grand Jury might there
after have found Us 'true bill /"
AS the Court Of Inquiry was convened simply to in
vestigae Colonel Babcock's conduct alleged by Mr.
Henderson in his public speech, IL is PLAN that Mr.
Henderson, his then official SUPERIOR the District
Attorney, could alone state what evidence the
statements had been based. II was therefore, my
duty 10 communicate with these gentlemen and obtain
list OF the witnesses or description of other evidence
that IN due OF law the witnesses might be sub
penaed and brought into open court TO testify.
Being commissioned and sworn public officer OF the
government represented the United States for the
particular case before the Court OF Inquiry and under
the statute was required to present and substantate
the charges far as possible. Colonel Babcock had
his counsel TO defend him. The Court of Inquiry
had nothing do have before remarked with any
evidence taken In the Grand Jury ROOM The court
proceed dc and conane itself TO Mr.. Hen
dersons published remarks Under this state OF facts
the so-called arrogant "high horse" despatch was
uraC aC inl
CHICAGO NJ Dec s. 1873
Hon. D. p DYER United States District Attorney, ST.
am informed by the Adjutant General Of the Army by
putstons transactions alleged by Hon J. B. Henderson
against Colonel o. = Bseeoek IN ,he recent 'a OF William
district Of Missouri and that the Attorney General has
qury Instituted by the President of which
General sheridan President will convene tomorow the
9h inst At twelve O'Clock noon, at room No. % Palmer
In advance assembling official action, have the
honor 80 request you TO furnish me- by return mail with
full copy Of these accusations mputaons or charges thus
bic and other information which you may be pleased to
your Judgment be advantageous
ssYs e hf HCq as 70 &
edge receipt
Up to this time had only newspaper account of
Mr.. Henderson's s speech and accusations which might
be incorrect The stenpgrapher's notes Of the trial
presumed might give them as proved to be the case
The Grand Jury had not then indicted and did not
know except by rumor, whether they were in
vestigating Colonel Babcock or not
Before, however, the Court OF Inquiry fully
ganized according to law, by being sworn the Grand
Jury brought true bin covering Mr. Henderson's
accusations. Immediately Colonel BabcOck officially
notified the Court and in the most creditabe
requested adjournment until his civil arrangement
and trial should be completed This the Court granted
OF course for although its inquiry had the re-
suits nothing to do with the criminal trial ST. Louis
nevertheless some OF the witnesses might have
been needed, and we thought IL our duty that the
military authority should await the action OF the civil
before continuing the proceedings sanctioned by ex-
press statute.
II is an axiom In the regular army that the military
authority IS always subordinate 10 the cviln never
tbeless, although the case just discussed ono
OF conflict OF jurisdiction comfy and due respect TO
the constituted authorities seemed TO require our
hands that action which, ! will observe, was unani.
nous Had our court proceeded, or should Il again be
convened the country will ntutvey understand that
personal feelings.
In these transactions Colonel Babcock's conduct ap-
pears to have been characterized with great proprety
He must have known that In asking for a court Of in
qulrY the range OF nvesilgatIon 70 his cnndnct