Year: 1879

Proceedings.


Gen. w. S. Hancock arose in his
place and, addressing the Court, said:


Mr.. President: have a motion to
make to the Court which will be prop
er to be made before the Court is
sworn, if it be made at all. If the
Court are prepared to hear me, will
proceed at once.


eral; the Court will hear you.


Gen. Hancock then read the follow
ing motion: A sense of duty to the
laws, to the military service, and to
the accused impels me to ask your
concurrence in pOstponement of this
inquiry for the present. We are all
bound TO believe in the entire inno-
cence of Gen. Babcock, and this pre-
sumption cannot be repelled without
the evidence. 1t is due to him to sup
pose that the court of inquiry was asked
in good faith for the reasons given.
What were these reasons: In the
course of a legal trial in st. Louis, Col.
Babcock was alleged TO be guilty of
high criminal offence. He asked for a
hearing in the same court, but was in
formed that he could not have it, be-
cause the evidence was closed. These
circumstances had led him to demand
court of inquiry, as the only means
of vindication that was left. Since
then he has been formally indicted,
and is now certain of getting that full
and fair trial before an impartial jury
which the laws of the country guaran-
tee to all its citizens. The supposed
necessity of convening a military court
for the determination of his guilt or
innocence no longer exists. 1t is not
ho1S mt TO-
tribunal can oust the jurisdiction of the
court in which the indictment is pend
ing. The President has said, through
the eAttorney-General, that such was
not the intention. Then the trial at
st. Louis and this inquiry must go on
at the same time, unless we await the
result of the inquiry there.


The difficulties are very formidable.
The accused must be present at the
trial of the Indictment. Shall we pro-
ceed and hear the cause behind his
back, or shall we vex him with two
trials at once? The injustice of this is
manifest.


I presume, from the nature of the
case, that the evidence is very volumi-
nous, consisting of records, papers, and
production Of these while they are
wanted for the purposes of the trial at
st. Louis? Certainly not, if the mill
tary be, as the Constitution declares,
subordinate to the civil authorities.
Shall we proceed without evidence,
and give an opinion in ignorance of
the facts? That cannot be the wish of
anybody. 1 take it for granted that
the trial at st. Louis will be fair, as
well as legal, and that the Judgment
will be according to the very truth and
Justice Of the cause. It will, without
question, be binding and conclusive
upon us, upon the Government, upon
the accused, and upon the world. If
ours could rescue him from the hands
of the law. If he is acquitted, our be-
lief in his innocence will be of no con-
sequence. If we anticipate the trial in
the civil court, our judgment, whether
for the accused or against him, will
have, and ought to lave, no effect up
on the jurors. 1t cannot even be made
known to them, and any attempt to
influence them by it would justly be
regarded as an obstruction of public
justice. On the other hand, his con-
viction there would be conclusive evil
dence of his guilt, and his acquittal
will relieve him of the necessity of
showing anything but the record. 1
10 AOt pfopoSe 20 poStpotfe iHueHHitety,
but simply to adjourn from day to day
until the evidence upon the subject of
our inquiry shall receive that definite
and conclusive shape which will be
impressed upon it by the verdict of the
jury; or until our action, having been
referred to the War Department, with
our opinion that our proceedings should
be stayed during the proceedings of
the court Of law, shall have been con-
tirmed. In case of acquittal by the
civil court, the functions of this court
will not necessarily have terminated.
The accused may be pronounced inno-
cent Of any crime against the statute,
and yet be guilty of some act which
the military law might punish by ex-


pulsion from the army. In case of ac-
quittal, he may insist upon showing to


us that he has done nothing inconsist-
ent with "the conduct of an officer and
a gentleman" as the article of war
runs; but the great and important
question is, "Guilty or not in manner
and form as he stands indicted?'' and
this can be legally answered only by a
jury of his country.


THE LAST OF CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLES