Year: 1876




the verdict would have given the coupde grace
to the third term question, and it is possible
that the mere indictment and trial may have
that effect. There has been q marked change
in the tone of public feeling during the
developments connected with the trial. In
the early part of the winter every intelligent
observer who had occasion TO spend a week
or two in Washington had the conviction
forced upon him that the confidential inti-
mates of the President regarded him as a
candidate and were actively intriguing to pro-
mote his nomination. During the last month
or two their zeal has slackened and their
efforts have tagged until at present the third
term is hardly talked about or thought of,
although the prospects of the republican
party have been steadily improving in conse-
quence of the imbecility and dissensions
of the democratic House. 1t is diff
cult to assign any other cause
for the fading of the third term spectre than
General Babcock's indictment and trial. In
public estimation there was strong prind
fdcie case against him, and the efforts in his
behalf were paralyzed at the critical juno
ture when the National Convention was
called and the delegates began to be chosen.
1t does not at present seem probable that
General Babcock's acquittal will arrest the
ebb of the third term tide.


President Grants conduct since the indict-
ment of his secretary has left bad impress
sion, which is not likely to be effaced. 1t
was indecorous for him to take the side of
the accused and exert his official and per-
sonal influence to thwart the prosecution.
1t was natural that he should be nervous and
concerned in a matter that came so near
home, but he ought to have left justice to
take its course and have confded
in the ability of innocence to vim
dicate itself before an impartial tri-
bunal. His unseemly attempts to influence
the trial will prevent the reaction in his
favor which might otherwise have followed
the acquittal. His dismissal of General
acknowledgement that, notwithstanding his in
nocence of the main charge, his conduct was
indefensible. Unless Babcock has done
something to forfeit confidence there is no
justice in compelling him to give up his
place. The theory of the defence, as set
forth by Judge Porter in his speech at st.
Louis, was that General Babcocks inter
course with the leaders of the Whiskey Ring
was not that of fellow conspirator, but of
an unsuspecting secretary with known
friends of the President. He had occasion
to witness, both in Washington and in st.
Louis, the marked intimacy and open ex-
change Of courtesies between the President
and Mcdonald, and it was plausibly argued
by Judge Porter that the recognition of such
a man by the President was sufficient war
rant for the confidence of his secretary.
Conceding the force of this argument it is
difficult to see why General Babcock should
be punished by the loss of his position. His
intimacy with thieves, not knowing them to
be thieves, was mistake which he not only
shared with the President but into which
he was led by the President. 1t was the
duty of General Grant TO know the character
of the men whom he trusted, but it was not
the duty of Babcock to go behind the in
dorsement ofhis chief in regulating his own
personal intercourse.


We think the President is wise in dis
pensing with the further services ofBabcock
but wise only in the sense of acknowledging
his own fault He was more to blame than
Babcock for having such cronies, and he
must always bear the greater share of the
discredit If his own intimacy with the
whiskey thieves was justifiable that of Bah
cock would need no vindication. He cannot
escape the implication that the dismissal of
the Secretary is condemnation of himself
who set the example which Babcock only
followed. The confession that intimacy with
the whiskey Ring is fault which requires
expiation and an atonement to public opin-
ion seems like withdrawal of the third
term pretensions. The republican party
would court defeat by running
man for the Presidency who has had kind
of intercourse with whiskey thieves which
disqualifies another man for the humble
post of private secretary. If it be said that
the dismissal of Babcock is not deserved
punishment, but a concession to public
sentiment, the case is not altered, for the
same public opinion which adjudges it in
decent for Babcock to remain in the White
House would protest against the reelection
of a President who not only committed the
same fault but set the example by which
Babcock was misled.


The letter which we publish from
an occasional Washington correspond
ent is worth considering in this relation.
It makes out very ugly case against both
the Attorney General and the President in
connection with the Babcock trial. While
we agree with our correspondent as to the
necessity of a thorough investigation, we
also think that the facts, even as they
stand, make it impossible for the Presi-