New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-02-18


A. I do not remember dates, but remember OF his
showing letter that had been handed him from
somebody Philadelphia to Mr. Rogers. and he said mat
1t appeared in his judgment 10 be simply MATCHMAKING;
and think that the occasion on which he told me
what he had stated MI Douglass that as remein-
Der
O. Do you remember that Gen. Babcock, prior to May
1875 talked with you about the proprety OF sending de-
tectyes the several districts to detect frudsi A.
do not remember OF his telling me at one time ofwhat
he had proposed TO Mr. Douglass, but the date OF II do
remember That not suggestion TO me; II was
merely what he had suggested TO Mr. Douglass ana If
the same that have before stated.
q. Do you remember when that conversation whsf
A. No. do My recollection is that he had shown
letter Mr. Douglass before he had TO and that
was the occasion when he told OF his suggestion.
@ Did Gen. Babcoek about the time Of its date show
you a dispatch In these words:
ST. Lorrs Oct o. 1874.
Gen. O. r. B,BcoCK, Ereeutce MANSON. gashinTton,
Iowl J.
IObected to by defendants COUNSEL
A. do not remember anything about IT.
@. Did Gen Babcock at about the time OF Its DATE
show you "a dispatch In the following words:
ST. LGUIs. April %, 1870
GEN. o BtncocK E[ee"'ire Mansion" NashihgSom,
d. O.: Tell Mae To Parker OF Colorado ana ttcfh
to Commissioner. Crush ont 81. Louis enemies GkiI'
lObccted to by counsel for defeudantl
O. Did Gen. Babcock at time tell you he had en-
dcayored to influence Commissioner Douglass to revoke
| that order A. No.
No KNOWLEDGE or ANY MISCONDUCT bf GIN
BABCOCk.
O. Since you say that Gen Babcock has not manifested
to YOU any desire to interfere with prevent She Ta OF
the indictments against himself and others, viii You De
50 good whether any of his friends for him.
have nj any these indictments were found EN-
deavored to prevent the trial Of the indictments AGAINST
him. or any other the Indicted parties and If So please
state who have made such efforts A. They have moi
with me.
O. VIII YOU please state why the order FOR the Court OF
Inquiry in Gen. Bdbcock's was made before tho al
joumeni u the Grand jury winch found the Indictment
against him, IL You knOwl A. II was made
because he applied for it. and thought
lie was clearly entitled u vndcac himself Il he was III
noccnt. had been denied that opportunity before the
Grand Jury.
O. Did Gen Babcock show you TELEGRAM from Di'-
trct Nttorcy Dyer saving that the conspiracy ease
would bc tried on D., l., $50 I 4 H. I'D; 30 not
remember about tine uat,s particularly.
o. Sow suppose. Nh President, that the substance
Of your testimony is what al know to be- truc-that
n there has been any misconduct the part " Gen
nqrcoci II las not come 10 your movcdgcf \. Yes,
sir. that j. true
O You do not know. Of course do you whether Mr..
Douglass suggested Secretary Brsow the same thinf
about the transfer of supervisors which you say he
originally suggested 20 youi \ ip not know any thing
about It except from The Secretary himself
o. DO Won Ic,ollcct ta Supervisor Tuition was ordered
Philadelphia t. ~. LOUIS under li- "Ih'I il 't"N
frl 4 That s my rccolcctlon-tlat he was ordered 10
50. Lo.,.
o. You ~ that Gen B1bcocs his made 40 'norr with
Won 90 a,rd tril. bat do not know oi your own
know edge of wheeler hc ha- uc any Efforts with
otAersi \. donot.
nrpIErCr EVAVT@ArI0N.
By Nr. Cook haudius q copy of tc.'sr'm 10 the WI
me- ST. wish You would state what y"u know 90 relation
to that A Inc dispatch seems t. bc dated "W'shins
ton oct -. 10 william H. Denton. W..lIm M"kc'. ana
John VI Kruu: Your request in regard 10 Oh" collector
ship will o. complied with. L e. Grant Tho-" gem
temcu ar, % Isl ~ t.c bouo,IIcu oi fori, a"d 'Lej
recommended Constantine Ma-.rs ior Ponds place a.
Collector.
O. rho ORIGINAL ~ that u.s. believe IN voTr wr''inrf
4 Us sir:i wrote trat saw fhrori-ra' This moninF
THE copy - the &C. c1au above referred 70 IS alohi
nc.tto AND marked &C. Nhi,it No. 81
lonirctei 10 by counsel for tie prosecution on the
ground Of the incompctcrcy, irrcIeyancy and imna-
tcr.aity.l
a. What was th. character ~ The o-roul"a"c De-
tween 81 Jo,oc aud Gru. Hanco. a, eyh ifrd g. yon
IO1.ct.d to ~ .ncoinp. tent 4ud cau< for secondary
evidence ard being a. who", rr'c' ant To ih" 'N'-
Of the easel
4 Aiy answer to that r. The samc o. la- bccu given
and objected TO-
o What wa. the ~, neral character ~ the explanation
al the .paicncs which soor attention has been III
f,c'cd ~ gwen son by Gcn. inbcockt
r0h,c,, 10 by th counsel for the prosecution on tie
Ground t.,t 10 + Irrelevant a4 u l.eli. .ud iiHi ih'
Declarations CO.. tc a.rl-'d a- Zee Oh" d-.'i'hcs ''iiri
t,,,ru.f Doe u-,d t- ,cil,oc, 100 DE- .itotl
A. Tire explanation Vnch Dee gavc SEEMED to me T."
clear. ui al Grounds Of suspicion AGAINST iu.
o. Wuut wis tic general cuarscty OF th'-e cNp.An'-
uou~t
same l,,,'ion rs 10 the ufnylous question:
4. n was generally ,iat1n,nt OF Their meanIn' and
v.at tr,y were in rc>ror.c To-; hut could not lo-
hig give 40 hi- time m explanation of any one "t them
O. Hut the explanations gwen at the time we're such a.