, 1876-02-13

| '7c les tIMONY.
I DOUGLASS RESUMES
o. LOUIS feo' H.-Upon the opening OF th
oAococa 1slai Ellis morning, the cross-examius
e1on Oh ). ". Douglass, e1-Commissioner of Il
s1.oa' Nesenue' was completed in few uniu
portant questions.
on the redirect examination. the District Al
'ofney presented an affidavit, purpo1t,ng to b
chafges preferred in 1873 BY Lindsay Murdock
oolleetof OF informal Revenue in Southeast Mis-
eourl. Ihe charges we're against John A. Joyc
anu John Mcdonald, respectively, Revenu
agents and Supervisors. The envelope was in
oorsed ~ G. G. Sniflin, tho Presidents privatt
secretary, showing tha. it had been received g
the Executive Mansion, and referred to the
| treasury Department. Another indorsemen,
showed the reference to the Commissions. OF
Internal Revenue. Mr. Douglass could not
testify that ho had seen the affidavit in s Office.
ihe District Attorney said that he proposed to
| read the affidavit, showing that in 1878 charges
] against Joyce and Mcdonald had been sent to
the Executive Mansion, aid had gone through
the Departments. The Court only allowed tic
witness TO testify that the iudoraeuaut showed
] that Huch charges had been received and flau.
Ihoy we're not read.
Nearly tho entire morning session WIS taken
up in trying to trace. through lie telegram
~
the dcorkeepars and messengers oil the Exccu-
tive Mansion. certain telegrams not yet admitted,
to prove that they we're received aud sent back
and forth between Joyce aud Mcdonald hero,
defense waived this proof as 70 one dispatch, aud
allowed the following, admitted to bs IN Gen.
babcocks handwriting, to be read:
NAsarG1os, D. G., Dec. - 1s7+.-Cen. John Nc
RSlqe I rsts y mo1s 3,ds;, sneeeeaed They viii al
"1l "t''e Sou' toRnep SILrH..
Before this WIS read, Judge Porter announced
that they proposed to make lengthy legal
argument against the admission of the other
teleGrams, and perhaps they might wish to in-
clude the "s}lph dispatch III ttoss objected
TO- Inc defense wished to reserve tn2t point.
ROGERS RECALLED.
deputy Commissioner Rogers was recalled
ne testified that he had q couTetsatiou with
Babcock With regard to the transfer Of Revenue
Agents. Dabcock said he Ind heard t1r. Douglass
was about to issue an order directing the trans.
fer of Agents. told him the order had that
morning been issued. He expressed his regret
as It would bring political pressure on Douglass,
and he would be forced to revoke the order. and
that would work disastrously to him. Douglass
tbs Court Of Ciaims. There would be
more or less odium on him (Gen. Babccck). on
account OF sle failure OF the euterp1ise When
the order was revoked thatintaryiew came about,
my messenger bringing me either u note or
verbal communication from Gen. Babcock. I
Lad no previous conversation with Tim on this
matter. did speak to him before Ibont the
JudSeship OF the Court of Claims. There. Was
not word SAID in the conversation with Gen.
Babcock at his house in regard to breaking up
the frauds here. Douglass WAS not appointed I
Judge Of tue Court OF Claims. for there was no |
VACANCY. l do not know that the revoking of |
the oricr changing Supervisors had cast such !
odium On Mr.. Douglass that he was not appoint |
cd. In the conversation with Gen. Babcock |
tod him should feoors tus interview to Mr. |
Dou glass.
CEoSS-ExaMINAIIoS, |
Ga c.oss-e1amloa.io1 wi:noss said had two
interviews with Gen. Eabcoca, The fret of which
sought myself. Ny ulterior object Was to pro-
noto tLeinlerests Of Mr. Douglass in ccnnection
;ith The Judgship Of Tho Court Of Claims, think
ing, no doubt, might get the position held by !
llm as Commissioner. Gen. Babcock expressed !
,reat friendship fo- ar. Douglass. do not know
t any influence was brought to bear. except
rom rumoT, to have tho order transferring tie |
supervisors revoked. think made application
y letter to Gen. NcDoaad to secure his assist
lnce. had no suspicious OF him at the time.
The reSoking Of the order by the President
rould create an impression that Sir. Douglass
yas rebuked. The leading object of Gen. Bap-
ock vas Judge Douglass, although he spoke of
ne more object, viz: saving the Pregidept
rom being annoyed.
coNTEsIISa EVERY INCH.
The opposition Of the defense to the admission |
t the dispatchesislleged to nava passed between |
oyce, Mcdonald, and Dabcock, WAS carried to | {
he utmost extremity. They would admit moth !
lg the clear proof Of Which could not be pro:
uced. They required not only proof OF the I
uthorship and transmission by telegraph. but | t
lat the dispatches were actually placed into the {
Rnds of the persons to whom they we're ad- t
esEed- So far the prosecution have satisfied {
'e defense only in one instance, that Of the
Syfph" telegram, given above The defense {
go objects to the ralovancT Of these dispatches,
Id stated they would argue their objections at Z
nsiderab1e length, and with thta view thoy re- Il
1esied the prosecution to group all their dis +
ltches together that the argument might be 4
ade at one time, rather than each dispatch | b
hen offered c
AN IMPORTANT DISPATCH.
The dispatch which met the most determined | Q
i'd persistent opposition is one sent from st.
,uis Dec =, 1874 to Gen. BabcocK. Washing e
n, signed ~, and admitted to ba in .Toyce's o
ndWritins, but it was not read. and therefore q
contents are not known outside Of counsel. e
1e dispatch Was traced into the hands Of 81
ice, Executive Mansion Washington who re- n
ipted for it, but as joyce died some months O
o, there Is no positive nroof that Gen. Bab- d
* ever received 1t, Other dispatches we're IN
ced in like manner to the door~keepers, or t le
le1s, who 1sceipted for them, bnt these per- d.
ns who were placed on the stand and testi- "
to receiving and recelptinE for them, as &C
own by the receipt books of the telegraph
rpany. could not identify OF swear to the &C
i delivery Of any particular dispatch to the
|
THE JUDGES RULING. p
Judge Dillon made partial ruling On this | "
estion, taking the sans ground he did tho in
ler day when deciding about tue admission of eu
testimony Of Everest regarding the mailing "a
the letters to PADDOCK and Avery with money
losures. He said: 81. It ia true that there ia ali
itiye proof that this dispatch WAS delivered. &c
q traced i1to the hands Of the Doorkeeper OF Of
Presidential Mansion. He has no inde- Sc
ldent recollection Of this particular dispatch. bo
states that his custom was to receiTe to
II, deive or them himself, or send them by Ba
ers. Nov. we won't say that this does not bo
70 a legal presumption that thia Was received
10 arc inclined to think, as we said the 9th
iay, that this evidence tending to show that bo
roper to be laid before the jury for their 1et
sidera:ion." til.
was than agreed that the dispatches be-
SHOULD BE GROUPED TOGETHER 10
the question Of their delivery, ctc., AID ca!
r relevancy, should be argued at the same COZ
.. bet
- | the
THOSE SUSPICIOUS DISPATCHES. sec
ARGUMENTS AS TO THEIR ADh1ssIBnI1Y.
{. LOUIS, Feb. 12.-At the opening Of the
1noon sesBion counsel on both sides ap~
rrjt1, nt1rnernus 1a1-hnoka and aydAutlv