Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-02-13
BABC0CK.
Eighth Day Of the Trial OF Grants Pri.
rate Secretary-The Question OF
The kilograms,
The FgmOus "Sylph' Dispatch the Only
One Admitted by the Defense
Bab's Counsel on Their
Mettle,
Testimony OF the President-He Does
Not Believe Babcock Guilty, and
Still Regards Him with
Favor.

= ! EaNVls
ST. LOUIS, Februsry Is.-Uoon th
opening Of the B4bcock trial this morn
ing the cross-examinAtion of ]. W
Douglass, ex-commissioner of interps
revenue, Was completed In few unim
). poTtaDt questions. On the redirect tn
{ district attorney presented an affidavit
: purpor;ing TO be charges preferred In lS7
by Lindsay Mud .ck, collector of in
? ,srnal revenue in southeast Missouri
!. The charges were against J ohm A. Joyc
: aud John M'DonAld respectively, reve
nue. agent and superVis )r. The envelop
was indorsed by {. c.. Sniffen, the Pres
Z ideups private secretary, showing tina
. it had been received at the exscutiv,
mansion and referred to the treasury de
psrtment. Another Endorsement showed
the reference to the commissioner of in
ternal revenue. Mr. Douglas could no
testify that he had seen the affidavit il
his office, The district attorney said b,
proposed to read the affidavit, showing
thst in 1872 charges against Joyce anG
M'D5nsld had been sent to the eXecu
tive mansion and had gone through thu
1n6 GtuEL NutT hllOMei
the witness TO testify that the indorse
meats showed thst such charges haC
been received ana filed. They were no
read. Nearly the entire morning Sc -siOI
was taken up in trying to trsct
through the Telegraph clerks o
this city aRd Washington, and also BY
the doOrkeepers and messengers OF the
executive mansion, certain kilograms
not yet admitted, and TO Ir0ve that they
were received and seLt back and fortt
between Joyce and M'Donald here, and
General Bsbcock in Washington. Fl.
Dally the defense waived this proof as Il
one dispatch and allowed the fDllowing,
admitted to be in General Babcock'E
handwriting, to be read:
WASHINGTON, February 10, 1874.
To General John M'Dor aid, st. Louis:
l succeed eded; they Will not go; will
write you. sYLPH.
Before this wss read Judge Potter an
nounced that they pTOpOseI to make q
lengthy legal argument against the ad-
mission o. the other kilograms, and per-
hsps they might wish to include this
'5ylph" dispatch in those objected to;
the defense wished to reserve that point.
Deputy Commissioner Rogers was re-
called aud testified: had a conversa-
tion with General Bsbcock in regsrd to
the transfer of q revenue agent; Bah.
cock said he had heard that Mr.. Doug
lass was about TO issue an order direct
ing transfer of agents; told him the
order had that morning been issued; he
expressed his regret, IS 1t would bring a
political pressure on D5uglass, and he
would be forced to revoke the order, and
I that xuNnlH xxprrkr Aicoo Al 70 f.,o.
Douglass was at that time spoken of as a
| candidate for the court Of claims; there
wonld be more or less odium on him
General BAbcockl On account OF the
failure of the enterprise when the order
was revoked; that interview came about
by 8 messenger bringing me either q
note or 8 verbal communication from
General Bsbcock; had no previous
conversation with him on this matter;
[ did speak to him before about the
| judgship of the court Of claims; there
was not a word said in the conversation
with General Bsbcock at his house in re-
gard to breaking up the frauds here;
| Douglass was not appointed Judge of the
| court Of claims for there was no va
cancy; do not know that the revoking
Of the order changing supervisors had
cast such odiun on Mr.. Douglass that
he was not appointed; in the conveIsa-
! tion with General Babcock told him /
should report the interview to Mr..
Douglass.
Oh cross examination, witness said:
had two interviews with General Bab-
cock, the first of which 1 sought myself;
my ulterior otj ct was 70 promote the
interest Of Mr.. Douglass in connection
with the judgeship Of the court Of
claims, thinking no doubt might get
the position held by him as commits
sioner; General Bsbeock expressed great
friendship for Mr.. Douglass; l do not
know Of any influence brought to bear,
except from rumor, to have the order
transferring the supervisors revoked; l
think l made application by letter to
General M'Donald to secure his assist
aDce; l bad no suspicious of him at
that time; the revokiDg of the order by
the President would create an impress
sion that Mr.. Douglass was rebuked;
the leading object of General Babcock
was Judge Douglass's interest, although
he spoke OF one more object, namely,
Saving the President from being an
noyed.n
The opposition Of the defense to the
admission Of dispatches alleged to have
passed between Joyce, M'Donald and
Babcock was carried to its utmost ex-
tremity. They would admit nothing
that the clear proof Of which could not
be produced. They required not only
the proof Of the authorship and trans
mission by telegraph, but that the dis
patches were actually placed into the
hands Of the persons to whom they were
addressed. So far, the prosecution have
satisfied the defense only 10 one in
stance, that Of the ''Sylph" telegram
given above. The defense also objected
to the relevancy of these dispatches, and
stated that they would urge their OBJ
jections at considerable length, and with
this view they requested the prosecution
tO group AL their dispatches together
that argument might be msde at one
time, rather than in each dispatch when
offered. The dispatch which met the
most determined and persistent Opposi-
ton, is the one sent from st. Louis, De-
cember 3, 1874, to General BAbcock,
Washington, signed J. and admitted to
he in Joyce's handwriting, but it wss
not read and therefore its contents sra not
known Cubside Of the counsel. The dis
patch was traced into the hands Of Geo.
$. Joyce, doorkeeper at the secretary's
Office, executive mansion, Washington,
who receipted for il, but as Joyce died
some months ago there h no positive
proof that General Babcock ever re.
ceived il. Other dispatches were traced
in like manner TO dOOrkeepers or others
who recsipted fer them, tut these per-
sOns who were placed on the stand, and
testified to receiving aud receipting for
them as shown by the receipt books Of
the telegraph company, could not iden-
ufy or swear to the actual delivery of
any particular dispatch TO the person to
whom il was addressed.
Judge Dillon made partial ruling on
this question, taking the same ground |
that he did the other day when deciding
about the admission of the testimony OF
Eyerst regarding the mailing Of letters |
TO Babcock and Avery with money in |
closures. He said: "It 10 true there is |
no positive proof that this dispatch was |
delivered. 1t is traced to the hands Of |
the doorkeePer at the Presidential man. |
slOn; he has no Independent recOllec- |
ton Of this particular dispatch; be states |
that his custom was to receive them, |
deliver them himself or senG. them by |
Others. Now We won't say that this |
does not raise large presum ption that
this wss received, hut We are inclined TO |
think, IS We said the other day, that this |
is evidence tending 20 show that, and |
proper to be laid beflre the jury for their
consideration"
1t was then agreed that the dispatches
should be grouped together, and the
question Of their delivery, etc and their
relevancy should be argued at the same
Il me.
AT the opening OF the afternoon ses-
zion the counsel on both sides appeared
with numerous law bookp, and evident
y prepared to make their arguments as
strong So p ssible. Several witnesses