The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-02-23
UNCLE SAM'S CASE.
A SHOW FOR BABCoCK's SIDE.
The Prosecution Offers More Mes
sages and Other Evidence
and Yields to the
Defense.
BABCoCKS BEST FRIEND ON THE
BENCH.

n Il
RLATED THE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. CONVEX
sAIIoN RULED eUT-THE AVERY LETTERS
ADMITTED-oNE MORE WITNESS FOS: THE
PROS ECO sI0N-WILLIAMS AZ wOBK en- THE
DEFENsE's OPENING
ST. LOs1s, Feb. V5.-Upon the opening OF the
Babcock trial, the counsel for the government
notified the court that further testimony would
reach here from Washington To-morrew respect
ing the dispaica of Joyce to BabcOck Of Deem
Der q, and the one from PADDOCK 90 Joyce Of
December ., 1874, which heve not yet been az
mitted. The court also gave notice to the
counsel that they wcule not pass on the ad :
instability Of the Avery kilograms until the
defense had an opportunity to present
evidence that Averys name was known
i 10 the indictment namIn
the eonspirators- One objection 10 the Avery
the con piracy, was cverruled az the kilograms
themselves tended &c show that Alfred Bevls,
fed that Joy ce showed him the "Sylph' dis.
patch from BabcocKtn December, 1874, and that
agents were not coming and on the strength OF
the information preparations we're MAZE TO run
crooked When JoSce shST seId tine mat mat
to go ahead. The witness continued; joyce
four days after saw the dispatch. ask ed him
for It and he gavett TO me. wanted TO satisfy
my partner that IL was all right. got 1t IL the
mornln g and retcrned IL in the afternoon. The
defense obje cted 10 the WITNESSES stating what
was in the letter, and how it was addressed, or
even the poslmerk. The court ruled that the
letJertRell was primary evidence, and second
AIRY evidences could not be adj
that that the the letter could not
be produced. Mr.. Bevis wac asked the effect OF
wasoverruled. The witness said that The letter
satisfied him I'll at IL was alright, and that they
whisky. f. b. Frazer, the business partner OF
the previous witness, wac called, and stated
tina. NJ bevis showed HIN Inc letter mentions
that The effect of 1t was that their house recon-
msnced
MAKING ILLICIT WHISKY.
On his eross-axaminatior this witness said he
was pretty well acquainted with Hogue, the rev
enae agentto whom ring money had been paid,
butcould not tell just wher he began to serve
the ring, nor. bow he was -seduced into its ser
vice. The witness received various letters and
kilograms frora Hogue. Some Of the latter were
signed BixDy. He rscOllec ed going TO Cinctn-
natl TO meet him or one occasion in refer
epce to a telegram. Hogue Kept the
ring pretty well advised of the adverse
was generally conside re- .as work. az consclen-
tiously In the cause In which he had been re-
ta1ned. The witness was shown eleven letters,
the writing on when be Identified as that of
Hague, but he never saw or heard OF the letters
before. :. NJ. Barton segent or manager of
stand and testified to having contributed in
April, ls7o, SO to fundcf oo,OUV which was TO
regarding the purpose 10 which that money
was put Mr.. Storrs-NoW, If 1t is proposed 10
convict the defendantby this Conversations we
object. Col Dyer-Well, sir, we propose to do
so. Mr.. Storrs-Then we object. Judge Dillon
Do You seek TO show by this evidence declasa,
transaction TO impIicate the defend
anti Col. .Dyer-I do. Col. Broadhead-Yes,
sir, upon the principles Of the ruling
IL the Mckee case in regard to .Leavenwortn's
declarations. They are the same precisely. 4 do
sot zee any difference, subject TO your ruling.
Judge Dillon-Yes, sir. The differences would be
this In The Mckee case, Wa. required the de
fendanGs connection with the conspiracy TO
be established before We received the declaEa-
lions. Mr. SJ0rrs--
AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.
Col. B-eadhead-I was going to remark that
didn't understand the court TO require us 10
how that In the Mckee case, but told usit
wouId be better that We had ell our own testi-
mony nbesore Introducing Il. Judge Dillon
Which was done Col. Boradh ead-Which was
done. Judge Dillon-And thec we allowed the
declarations TO so into ev derce. Col Broad
head-,Of course, IL your. honor admits That,
that was the ruling. Judge Olllon-Tnere IL
dispute about the law applicable to
this questnn. IL Is not commended here by the
counsel for the government that anything that
MI. Joyce said, unless on the assumption that IL
is estaHiished'by OJhec testimony 10 the salts
faction ofthe jury that the defendant here was
member OF the conspiracy, has2ny evidentlal
testimony, that is you have Il Ia the shape OF
telegraRsand In the shape OF the S,a;emenUs of
witnesses OF their own KnOwledgs.
deeIsratssns of JoS@e is offered for for
the Independent purpose OF showing that tho
defend ant was connected with this cOnsp racy.
AS the connsel undel stands very we'll. it is not
eompetentsexceptOn the assumption that the
defenoanr's connection wkh the conspiracy is
otherwise own. NOW, the OBI ect OF this l. sti-
moDy, as IL seemsto both Ct us, is not for the
legitimate pGrpose OF showing the nature of this
conspiracy J9nt for the purpose OF indirectly
doing whaJ.the law will lot permit directly 10
be done, namely, TO show tie deien6ent's con-
court has q discretion in sEch cas es
10 admit sGok testimony, or testimony of this
finally shown that the defendant was eonnected
with the conspiracy, and therefore the state
ment of one OF tie conspirators with mother in
scheme would be competent. But 1t is
trre that the regular course is, and, as
in cases OF this kind is to require that
the connection be fast established aud, ldthere
ever was case where that should be done IL is
a case OF this character. The character OF this
man Joyce, the oDvions purpose which he seems
tillers to make illicit whisky, the bold and de-
liant character of Llis operations here, makes IL
extremely dangerous t0 receive thLx kind OF les
tim0ny. don't know
WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE SAID.
He might have undertaken 20 implicate tie
Judicial officers of the government, and wouId
tremble for the reputation OF the courk if it wac
to be impKca. ed on the mere declaration of thiEl
man In carrying out his scheme. We think the.
testimony, rs to his mere declarations ought not
10 be received. j. ]. BROOKS, formerly re ven ne
agent. but Row assistant chief OF the secret
service division OF the treasury d. part
ment, testified, and corroborated Com
missioner .Douglass's account OF his efforts
to unearth the1(auds here In 1874, giving the
same dates of consultations. interviews, letters.
kilograms. visits 20 Washington, Philsdelp hta,
ETC., by himself and Bogue as were given by Mr..
Douglass. He aIso described his visit TO New
Orleans and the detection OF frauds there La
A pril, 1874, and subsequently his detection OF
fhc.fr orAa nfu 10 do n nf al
his cross-exaxninaHon ne said that he had some
Suspicious OF Hogue 5 Integrity by reason OF rec
ports which came 10 him while at New Orleans |
time and did not reach New Orleans until |
after he the wltness) had seized the distilleries.
There were evidences at New Orleans that |
tidingg Of their visits had been received in adj |
vance. Again, wien he and Hogue were in st. |
Louis, examining Bevis q krazer's affairs, Hogue
did some things which he 1.-THE wi ne ss) thought L
reprehensibies He associated with tltzroy too |
much and went aroun nd with the distillers. He |