The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-02-16

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GRIMES.

Gen. Babcock's Trial.
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GRIMES.
ST. LOUIS, Feb. 1.-THE first witness
called this morning, in the trial Of Gen
o. L. Babcock, was Major T.. Il. Grimes
depot quartermaster in the United States
army, stationed at st. Louis. Major
Grimes was introduced by the prose.
cution to show that Gen. Babcock car.
ried on correspondence with Mcdonald
last fall, while the latter was under in
dictment for completely in the whisky
frauds.
Major Grimes said have been in the
army since September, 1862. L know
Gen. Babcock. having met him first in
1862 in Utah, when / was district quar-
termaster. / saw Gen. Babcock when
he was here last fall, probably in Sep
TENDER, just before the time Of the fair,
with the Presidential party. He said to
me that he would probably want to sentl
some letters or packages through me to
other parties. He did not say to whom.
After that he sent three letters to
me, and / recollect, that is, ] sup
pose he sent them-f got letter ad-
1t. That was q short time after 1 saw
General Babcock here. The letter in
closed in mine was in white envelope,
sealed and marked Mcdonald" The
note to me in the first letter was simply
"Please deliver the inclosed letter 70
Mcdonald" and it was signed 80. e.
Babcock." gave the inclosed letter to
Mcdonald, think at my Office. A week
or ten days later / received another
letter through the postoffice. directed
to me. There was no note in it,
but an envelope addressed in a
different hand from that of the first to
Mcdonald. There was no note to me,
but there was piece Of paper wrapped
was just like the second. I delivered all
three Of these letters to Mcdonald.
When one Of them came he was not
here and i'm trying to find him / met
his brother-in-law, Tom Walsh, and
told him, but don't know what Walsh
did. t
In the cross-examination Maj. Grimes
said he had known Gen. BabcOck per-
sonally and intimately, and that the
latter had been good friend to him.
On one occasion, when Mcdonald and
Mckee were reported to be using their
influence to have him removed because
he would not put a man in the place
that they wanted, Babcock promised his
The witness, in the course Of his ex-
animation, said: Once when delivered
these letters to Mcdonald, / asked him
(McDonald), Did Babcock have any
thing to do with the whisky ring? And
he said, "Gximes, l don't know.
don't believe ne knows any more about
it than you do, and you know you don't
know anything about it,
On the redirect examination Major
Grimes was asked, did Mcdonald, in
that conversation, say that he himself
didn't know anything about the whisky
ring ?"
The District Attorney-How did you
come to ask whether Babcock had any
thing TO do with the whisky ring?
The Witness asked it for the simple
reason that If Babcock, who had been
my friend, had had anything to do with
It, 1 was going to drop him.
The District Attorney-What reason
had YOU to suspect the General?
The Witness but the fact OF
the letters sent through me-.
st. LOUIS, Feb. 13.--During the ex-
animation on Saturday, the dispatch
signed u" from St. Louis, was traced
into the hands Of George s. Joyce, door
keeper at the Secretary's office, Execu-
L. w
ed for it, but as doorkceper. Joyce died
some months ago. There is no positive
proof that Gen. Babcock ever received it..
Other dispatches were traced in like
manner to door-keepers and others who
receipted for them These persons, who
were placed on the stand, testified to re-
ceiving and receipting for them, as
shown by receipts The books Of the
Telegraph Company could not identity
or swear. to actual delivery of any par
ticular dispatch to the person to whom
addressed.
Judge Dillon made partial ruling on
this question, taking the same ground
he did the other day when deciding
about the admission Of testimony OF Mr..
Evarest regarding the mailing of the
letters OF Babcock ard Avery with
money enclosures. He said:
1t is true there is no positive proof
that this dispatch was delivered. 1t is
traced to the hands OF the doorkeeper
at the Presidential Mansion. He has
no Independent recollection OF this par
ticular dispatch.
He states that his custom was to re-
ceive them and deliver them himself Or
send them by others. Now, we won I
say that this does not raise a legal pre-
sumption that this was received.
But we think, as we said the other
day, that this evidence is tending TO
show that, and proper to be laid before
the Jury for their consideration. 1t was
then agreed that the dispatches should
be grouped together, and that the cues
ton of their delivery and their rele-
vancy should be argued at the same
time.