Year: 1875

dctment of Gen. Babcock by the grand
| Jury al st. Louis, has been officially COM
municated to the Attorney-Gencral.


Special counsel Henderson has tele-
graphed the Attorney-General that the
sworn statement of the remarks he made
on the Avery trial has been forwarded
to the Department OF Justice.


The Court OF Inquiry-ShaI IL Con.


tinue its Investigation:
CHICAGO, December l0.-The Bah.
cock Court Of Inquiry met AGAIN at noon
to-day. Gen Hancock Immediately read
the following:


"a sense of duty to'the laws and to the
military service and to the accused inn
pels me to ask your concurrence in II
postponcment of this inquiry for the
present. We are all bound to believe in
| tho entire innocence of Col Babcock,
and this presumption cannot be repelled
without clear evidence. 1t is due TO him
to suppose that this Court of Inquiry was
asked in good faith for the reasons given
| What were these rcasons2 In the course
of legal trial at st. Louis Col Babcock
was alleged to be guilty of ahigh Grim
| inal ohense. He asked for hearing
/ in the same court, but was informed that
he could not have it, because the evil
dence was closed. These circumstances
| led HIM to demand a court of inquiry, as
! the only means of vindicatiOn left him.
! Since,then he has been formally indicted
and he is now certain of getting full
and fair trial before an impartial jury,
which the laws of the country guarantee
all its citizens. The supposed necessity
for converting military court for the
determination of his guilt or innocence
no longer exists. 1t is believed that our
action AS military tribunal can
not oust the jurisdiction of the
court while the indictment is
pending. The President has said
through the Attorney-General that such
was not the intention. Then the trial at
St. Louis and this inquiry must so Oh at
the same time, unless We await the result
oethe inquiry, and then the difficulties are
very formidable The accused must be
present at the trial. Shall we proceed
and hear the cause behind his back or
! shall we vex him with two trirls at once.





! The Injustice OF this is manifest. pre-
sumo from the nature of the case that
the evidence is very youminouS, consist
ing of records, papers and oral testimony.


Can we compel this production Of these
while they are wanted for the purposes
of the trial at ST. Louis? Certainly not
| if the military be, as the Constitution
saws, subordinate to the civil authorities.
Shall we proceed, without evidence, and
| give an opinion in ignorance ofthc facts
That cannot be the wish Of anybody. |
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. 1t will, without question, be
binding and conclusive upon US, upon
the Government, and upon the accused,
and upon all the world. If he should he
convicted no decision Of ours could rescue
him out OF the hands OF the law. If he
is acquitted our belief in his innocence
will be of no consequence. If we an
ticipate the trial in a civil court our
| Judgment, whether for the accused or
against him. will have and ought to have
no effect upon 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 conviction there would be conclusive
evidence of bis guilt, and his acqulttal
will relieve him from the necessity of
showing anything but the record. do
not propose to postpone indefinitely, but
simply TO adjourn from day to day, until
evidence upon the subject of our inquiry
shall receive that definite and conclusive
shape which will beiimpresSed upon it By
the verdict ofthejury, or until our action
having been referred to the War Depart
ment with oul opinion that our
proceedings should, during the pro-
ceeding OF the court of law be suspended
shall have been confirmed. In case Of
acQuittal by the Civil Court, the func
tions of this Court will not necessarily
have terminated. The accused may be
pronounced innocent Of any crime
against the statutes, yet guilty of some
act which the military law might punish
by expulsion from the army. In case of
acquittal, he may insist on showing to us
that he has done nothing neon
sistent with the conduct of
an officer and gentleman, as The
articles of war run, but the great and
important question 'is, guilty or not
guilty in the manner and form rs he
stands indicted, and this can be legally
answered only by a jury Of his country
men.


The Judge advocate then said in sub
stance that the Court had not been fully
organized, and that he had received
communication from Ba5cock, which he
submitted to the Court.


This communication requested the
Court to adjourn tor the present, in order
to admit of his appearing in ST. Louis tn
answer there the charges made
on him by the st. Louis grand
| Jury. In view of this communca-
tion, the Judge advocate suggested
that the trial be postponed for the present,
and that the court communicate TO PreS
dent Grant the state of the case, with
view that the court might adjourn to
meet again ut the can OF the President.
| The court room was then cleared of
spectators, for consultation. On reopen
ing the doors it was announced that the
court would adjourn FROM day TO day till
/ its action had been communicated 10 the
! War Department, and adjournment was
| Immediately announced until noon to-
morrow.


( Judge Advocate Gardner endeavorcd
to impress on the representatives of the
press that the remarks of Gen. Hancock
were not the result of any deliberatlon
/ ofthe Committee. However this may
be, it is well known that Lieutenant
! General Sheridan expressed similar
views before the convening of tie Court,
and held that it would be much better
for Gen. Babcock and all concerned for
/ the Court 10 await the result Of the eX-
animation before the civil Courts.


The $4,000 Race.


SAN FRANCIsCo, December l0.-The