Year: 1876

The trial of General Babcock came to an
end yesterday by the jury rendering YER
dict of acquittal. The promptitude with
which this verdict was given tends to show
that the case of the government failed COM
pletely. The result will doubtless be
gratifying surprise to the country. All
the news from st. Louis limited at a con-
viction or the disagreement of the jury.
1t must be remembered, however, that
many correspondents and editors OF party
newspapers regarded this trial as politi-
cal expedient With them the destruction
of Babcock was nothing, so that party inter-
ests were served. This is an unhappy
feature of all trials in any sense political.
Passion takes the place of reason and justice
gives place to expedency Happily, how
ever the rights and liberties of citizen, the
honor of government and nation, are not,
under our laws, at the mercy of any party,
no matter how vindictive, and General
Babcock should be accorded the same
generous acquittal as any other defendant
both by the public and the jury All accounts
unite in commencing the ability and resolu-
ton shown by the counsel for the prosecu-
ton. The speech of Brodhead was
philippe. Dyer exhausted the resources
of Western rhetoric and all the arts
of O skilled advocate to persuade the
jury that the accused was guilty. Nor can
it for a moment be supposed that the judges
were governed by any idea but that perfect
Justice should be done. The rulings through
out the trial showed that there was no dis
position to screen the accused The fact
that they gave so much satisfaction to the
enemies of Babcock should add to the value
of the verdict.


Our first duty is to congratulate the Presi-
dent upon this result. The conviction of
Babcock would have been the moral convic-
ton of General Grant. The country would
have believed, and Justly, that the guilt of
one so near to the Executive meant
that the President himself was negligent
in the discharge of his duty or con-
nved at the crimes against the rev.
enue. Whatever we may think of the
administration such stain upon the very
seat of supreme executive power would have
been a sad commentary upon this centennial
time 1t would have been sad indeed if the
year which is to commemorate the glorious
achievements of Washington in founding
the Republic should mark the downfall of
the General whose valor largely contributed
to save it. To certain extent it was
neither Grant nor Babcock on trial,
but the country. Those who fear and
hate republicanism would have gloried in
verdict which showed that the Chief Execu-
tive was little more than a sordid vulgar
peculator conspiring to defraud the revenue,
while those who wish it well and who see
in our system the solution of the grave prob
lens which threaten modern society would
have feared that after all a government Of the
people was unequal to the higher duties ofgov-
ernment In this view the acquittal of Gen
eral Babcock is matter for national con-
graduation. Had he been guilty there are
no words that could adequately describe his
guilt. An officer of the army, admitted at
West Point, an officer of the highest
grade showing in his rank alone the
possession of unusual military skill, the
military associate of General Grant in the
trying moments of the war, the secretary of
the President, holding a relation of unusual
trust and responsibility fact that such
an officer should be guilty of frauds upon the
revenue would have been crime of unusual
enormity. 1t would have been the spectacle
of man for the mere sake of gain
betraying the chief he had sworn to
serve, the service whose proud uniform he
wore, the party which had given him
power the country which had educated and
honored him. We are glad, therefore,
that an American jury has not been called
upon to punish such crime. If there had
been evidence enough to convict General
Babcock he would have been found
guilty. We can well believe this
when we remember that only a few
days have elapsed since Mr. Mckee,
wealthy and eminent citizen of St Louis
surrounded by the highest social and politi-
cal influence, was convicted of crime like
that charged upon General Babcock. This
is an assurance that there are no influences
in this court disposed to screen criminals, no
matter how powerful. The acquittal of
Babcock means that there was not sufficient
evidence against him, and in this verdict the
country, without distinction of party, will
acquiesce.


But while General Babcock leaves the dock
exonerated, while he passes from this fearful
ordeal his lhonor redeemed, there are some
aspects Of the case not judicial that remain
to be considered. We question if he should
return to the White House. He has shown,
even by his own admissions that he was
in relation with the worst of men. He
admits that he was in correspondence
of the most familiar nature with con-
victed felons like Joyce and Mcdonald.
He has been so careless in his rela-
tions with these people that his name
,,,os mead ae on incentive To crima Rv his