The New York Herald Newspaper, February 18, 1876, Page 3

MINISTER BANCROFT’S ACCOUNT. puaRP CORRESPONDENCE THE GREAT " @ISTORIAM AND THE SECBETARY OF THE ‘TREASUBY. Wasnixqrox, Feb, 17, 1876, Hon. George Bancroft has inclosed to Representative Swann, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, copies of the recent correspondence between the Secre- tary of the Treasury and himself, and which he designs {or the information of the committee, In a letter dated the 14th inst. Mr. Bancroft says he was alike amazed end grieved on finding that an official paper, sent under the sanction of the Treasury Department to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, made a statement that “George Bancroft, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the German Empire, owed the gov- ernment $5,074 77, since allowed.” This statement, Mr, Bancroft says, generally and *ecifically, is diametrically opposed to the facts, On Ahe Ist day of July, 1875; he had no account with the government whatever. He retired from the office of Minister at Berlin on the 13th of Jyne, 1874, and on that same day forwarded to the Fifth Auditor his ac- counts as Minister for the quarter ending on that day. It was found correct in every particular, and was vromptly adjusted. A very large balance, though only 3 nominal one, was found due him. Of this he was ‘apprised by a letter from the First Comptroller, bear- ing date of July 3, 1874 He then makes a statement ‘as to the payment of the money, and concludes by say- cs Secretary will see how grievously the department has wronged him, and he invokes the Secretary, at the earliest possible moment, to repair the wrong which had been done to him, Secretary Bristow, on the 15th, first acknowledges the receipt of Mr. Bancroft’s letter, and explains that the Committee on Foreign Affairs had requested the Regwter of the Treasury to furnish « list of balances due diplomatic and consular officers as shown on his books on the 1st of July, and that this balance appeared thereon to Mr. Bancroft’s debit. It appears that the Register omitted to give credit as he had been directed to do by the accounting officers, The credit was given, however, as soon as the omission was discovered. The statement rendered shows that the balance against him ‘no longer exists, the words ‘since allowed”’ being used to denote that it has been moved. The Secretary regrets that this matter has been the source of annoy- anceto Mr. Bancroft. Mr. Bancroft responds February 16 that— The Secretary er is not such as he had a right to expect from his sense of justice. It is not as a matter that caused me annoyance that I addressed my- self to you, My complaint is that you have done me the most grievous wrong that a Secretary of the Treas- ‘ury can inflict on a public officer of the country. 1 have repeatedly held high stations under the govern- ment, and in every instanco, without exception, the accounting officers have found, when I retired from office, that the United States were indebted to me. Many weeks ago the Committee of the House on For- eign Affairs requested of you, sir, and not of the Regts- ter of the Treasury, a statement of the amounts due the United States from diplomatic and consular officers ‘on the Ist day of July, 1875, After taking a long period for inquiry, you saw fit, on Thursday or Friday of last week, deliberately to report that a year and a day after 1 had retired trom office as Minister at Berlin I, who really never was in debt to the yore ment, remained ‘a debtor to it to the amount of $5,074 77gwhen in truth such a balance was never, then or atany time, due trom me. You have further reported that the above named sum of $5,074 77 has been ‘allowed’? me since July 1, 1875; when in truth, as you well know, nothingbas been allowed me since the final settioment of my ac- counts immediately after my return to my country in 1874, As to these erroneous and to me most injurious siatemente, made by you toa committee of the House, and so through that committee to the press at home ‘ana abroad, you will see that for my instant and com- plete vindication I have a right to demand of you, un- der your own band, the most clear, explicit and un- equivocal statement. That immediately on my return from my post at Berlin I lost no time in seeking from ‘the Fifth Auditor and the First Comptroller a formal adjustment of my accounts as Minister to Berlin; that the Locetova na § officers promptly gave their attention to my request; that the First Comptroller, on the 4th day of November, 1874, detinitively adjusted aud closed my accounts, finding a balance due me from the Depart- ment of State of $30 02, and a balance of $2,386 51 due ‘to me from the United States Financial Agency of Lon- don, which last was not collected by me till about ‘the 19th of November, 1874, so tbat, in fact, on the tinal adjustment of my account the government of the United States was in debt to me $2,416 53, I havea right further to the acknowledgment from you, under your own hand, that the statement which you sent to ihe House committee that on the Ist day of July, 1875, 1 owed a> large balance to the Treasury of the United States, is diametrically contrary to the true state of the facts. And further, that the statement ‘which you sent to the committee that since the lst day ‘of July, 1875, the sum of $5,074 77 has been allowed me is in like manner utterly without foundation; that my account Was definitely closed un the 4th day of Novem. Der, 1874; that from that day I have had no account with the government, and that since that date you bave allowed me nothing whatever. Secretary Bristow, on February 16, replied as fol- Jews :— Sim—Waiving all objection to the offensive character of your letter of this morning, which no doubt arises from pardonable irritation on your part, I beg to say ‘tbat you can scarcely suppose that the Secretary of the ‘Treasury personally keeps the accounts of any of the ‘officers whose accounts are kept in this department. ‘The system of accounting and bookkeeping established by law is carried on by the officers appointed under ‘the authority of the law, and, although these are un- der the general direction of the Secretary of the Treas- ury, you must quite too familiar wivh the magnitude of the business of the department to suppose that the Secretary can have actual onal knowledge of the various accounts kept jn the department, In this particular case the inquiry of the Commissioner required a statement ot how the accounts stood on the Ist day of July, 1875, ‘The inquiry was necessarily referred to the Register ‘of the Treasury, who has charge of the books, for the purpose of EIS ‘ing @ respouse thereto, and the an- hed by ‘wer furnis! him contains a statement of your account as it stood on the books of his office on said date. In order that there might be no mistake in the information furnished the paper prepared by the Reg- ister was sent te the First Comptroller for examination before beiug forwarded ‘to the committee. The words ‘written opposite your name—‘since allowed’’—wore, perhaps, not well chosen, but I think you have given them too narrow a construction, It was not intended by them to convey the idea that an amount had been allowed and paid to you, but simply that the yee entry had since been made on the books of the is- ‘ter of the Treasury which caused that apparent bal- ance to disappear, It is due to frankness to say that it has since been discovered that the mistake in your case arose in the foliowing manner:— ‘Your tinal account was adjusted and revised Novem ber 4, 1874, and you were so advised by the Comp- troller on that In said adjustment you were eharged with drafts drawn on Morton, Rose & Co., amounting to $5,074 77, and there remained due to you $80 02, for which you drew to your account, When the bankers’ account was subsequently adjusted, showing the payment of the above draft, you were Po eager pong again with the same drafts, mak- 4nga double charge in that amount, and-causing you to ‘appear asa debtor in the amount stated. This error ‘was not discovered until after July 1, 1875. The Secretary encloses to Mr. Bancroft a copy ot the ommunication he has addressed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, explaining how the error occurred, and in conclusion begs to assure Mr. Bancroft that be is ready to make whatever reparation may be in his power for any injuries occurring to nim through the in- advertance of any officer of the department. THE WHISKEY RING. MOVING ON THE “RING” INTRENCHMENTS IN NEW OBLEANS— PROBABLE CHANGE oF VENUE. New Onieays, Feb. 17, 1876. The Whiskey Ring men are in great agitation to- ‘night, owing to the determination of District Attorney Beckwith to ask for a change of venue. The prob- bilities are that Judge Wood will grant the request, ‘This opinion 1s based on the fuct that after the jury had to-day rendered a verdict of “not guilty” in the case of Dudenheiffer, accused of embezzling $27,000 from the German National Bank, subsequently reim- bursed, Judge Wood very severely rebuked the jury, ‘Using the strongest language in critici#ing their ver- dict. Holstein, of Indiana, is expected here to assist Beckwith in prosecuting the Ring. WHISKEY MEN ACQUITTED IN CINCINNATI— OTHER CASES ON TRIAL. Crixcinnatt, Fob. 17, 1876 In the case of A. Mann &Co., on trial the past ‘week, in the United States Court, charged with omit- ting to make the proper entries of spirits, the jury Go-day returned a verdict of not guilty. ‘The case of Henry H. Hamilton, rectifier, and Lewis a rege my a was taken up. Hamilton is charged witl ing false not) rectify, and ee anaes e Secon days, as a large number of wituesses, are called. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DAVIS IM- PEACHED. Muurms, Feb. 17, 1876. A special to the Appeal from Jackson, Mits., says in bie House to-day formal articles of impeachment of Lieutenant Governor Davi: adopt with only seven isnonting vote nec. se ‘The Ames reget sm | Committee have concluded bre pe ena and will report soon. The testimony, a develop several serious charges heretofore current bad | NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1876.—TRIPLE SHEET. letters to Joyce, but Joyce refused to give him are- j state conversations between himself and the defena- BABCOCK’S TRIAL. Close of the Direct Evidence for the Accused. General Sherman Testifies as to His Good Character. THE LETTERS TO JOYCE. Full Text of the President's Deposition. Matters that Were Not Known to the Executive. THE HOGE DOCUMENTS. —_ f= Exclusion of Despatches Offered by the Prosecution. Sr. Lovis, Mo., Feb, 17, 1876. The defence rested shortly after five o'clock this evening withput calling Luckey, Avery or Sniffin, as had been anticipated, They won another legal vic- tory, for the Court finally determined to exclude two of the three despatches which they had still held under advisement. One of these is from Babcock to Joyce, saying: — “Cannot hear that any one has gone or is going.”” It was excluded because the government did not pro- duce the original, which was stolen from the Washing- ton office of the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph, The other is the ‘Grit’? despatch from Joyce to Babcock :— “Tell Me, (meaning McDonald) to see party of Col- orado and telegram to Commissioner. Crush out St. Louis enemies.”” It was excluded because Babcock did not answer this despatch and because it did not appear that he knew the meaning of tho signature “Grit.” Storrs and Babcock were quite buoyant over this victory, and the latter looked good humored all day. Mr. Storrs read again the amusing letters from Joyce to Babcock and from Babcock to Joyce, to show that their correspondence was altogether of an intimate character, such as would explain the tenor of the despatches, Joyce, when re- counting the triumphs of his editorial says:—This is the way I and McDonald win friends for the administration.”? other editorial which he sends, Joyce says:— «Sumner and Schurz are for the first time shown in their true light. How do you like the ring of the article? Joyce asks in another letter whether Powell Clayton will work with Grant if he gets half « chance, Babcock replies, ‘I am sure you and McDonald are doing all you can for the good of the country.” I think “muse,” In an- Clayton will have no trouble, You know how we all stand on that subject,” ‘Yours with remarks on Gree_ ley at hand. Very good. Your article is fine and tell. ing. Many of our friends think the Baltimore Conve tion willendinarow. If you can go to the Philad phia Convention it will be a buster, and many thanks for the editorial on Grant and Wilson.” The last ex- tract elicited much giggling. = There was a good deal of raillery on the object of Joyce's mode of expression, as testified to by Dunn, the Post Office clerk. Storrs asked, “Was not Joyce florid in expression and exuberant in fancy ?’”? To which the witness replied, ‘1 think Colonei Dyer will admit that,”? “That wouldn’t strengthen it,” Storrs returned dryly ; ‘state the fact.” And even the sober Dillonsmiled at this sally. Dyer, to burlesque the direct examination as to Joyce’s poetic expressions, by which the defence sought to explain the peculiar phraseology of the tele- grams, asked who was his favorite poet; to which the witness replied, ‘Moore!’ amidst a general titer. He then inquired, “Do you know whether he liked flowers and birds?” This was a sly allusion to the testimony of Rogers that Babcock once wanted to find out whether anybody was going West under the pre- tence that he wished to send a vird—a “thrush” —with him. When Everest’s testimony was sought to be contra- dicted by testimony of postmen that it was not usual to drop valuable letters into the letter boxes, Dyer asked seriously, “There's nothing in the constitution or the laws to prevent it, ifa man wants to, is there?” which again elicited laughter. The President’s deposition was read by Mr. Porter, he Deing the most impressive looking man of Babcock’s counsel, and in a very solemn, measured tone, as though every word was a gem of the purest ray serene. Mr. Gill, who testified as to having returned to Joyce the Everest letters, became very confused in the cross- examination and involved himself im many contradic- tions, A REMARKABLE PACT is that one of Babcock’s detectives, W. S. Beil, is the same man who, the prosecution allege, stole the evi- dence in the Avery case from the office of the District Attorney, and that the defendant, it is asseried, wanted him to find out whether Dyer had any telegrams to Joyce in his (Babcock’s) handwriting, signed Bullfinch and B. Finch, as he did not remember whether they were letters or telegrams which he had so signed. From the fact that the prosecution has no such tele- grams they must have been letters, Sherman may also be put upon the stand in rebuttal to show how the Hoge letters were obtained, Under dato February of 10 the Attorney General wrote to Dyer, enclosing letters from Roger Sherman and United States District At- torney Bliss, of New York, and saying:— It appears from these letters.that there is the most urgent necessity that the testimony of John W. Bing- ham should be had in order to the conviction of certain guilty men in New York, and incidentally to the recov- ery of large sums of money to the United States, In- fluenced by this consideration, I hereby instruct you 10 refrain from moving for sentence against Bingham in the United States Court at St. Louis until further orders from the department, unless you see a neces- sity jor a different course, MR. SHERMAN’S CONDUCT IN ST. LOIS. The following is Dyer’s answer, under date of Feb- ruary 12:— Sm—I am tn recefpt of your letter of the 10th inst. covering letter of Roger M. Sherman to you, dated February 6, 1876, in which he says that “Colonel Dyer, the District Attorney here, has not responded except formally t@ the direction to render me assist- ance contained in & letter from you, of which I was she bearer, He does not manifest the slightest interest iB the interests of the government beyond the pending whiskey trials here, and I am accordingly apprebensive lest he should move sentence on Mr, Bingham's ples of guilty here.” In regard to the matter of sentence of Mr. Bingham under his plen of guilty bere, | have only to say that the Court announced more than onco phat it would not pass sentences untilgthe cases here were tried or otherwise disposed of, and it is not in my power, therefore, to have the Court sentence Bing- ham if I were disposed to ask it—a matter about which Mr. Sherman never spoke a word to ma When Mr. Sherman came here | was and stillam quite busy, and I directed Mr. Peddrick to give him all the assistance in his power, This he has done, giving to the latter his whole time or nearly so. I haye received from various trusty sources information touching the con- duct of Mr. Sherman since his arrival here that has led me to belicve that he was more interested in the pending whiskey trials than he bas been in the busi- ness for which he was sent, and that not on the side of the prosecution either. I care nothing for this, no more than I care for him, nor do I suffer the twaddle of such fellows to annoy me. I detailed one of my assistants to aid bim but have pot bad time. even if I had the inclination, to give him such attention as he would seemingly require. Very respectfully, DAVID P. DYER, District Attorney. * SHERMAN 4s 4 srY. The following is the telegram from Dyer to Pierre- pont which was not given by the latter for pablica- tion:— - Sr. Lovis, Feb, 14,1876, To Hon. Epwarps Pixgrerost, Attorney General, Washington, D. C.:— Evidence accumulates that Sherman has lent himself in the interest of Babcock, and I desire to notify you that I shall e%end no further courtesies to him. - DAVID P. DYER, District Attorney. On the same day Dyer wrote a letter to Sherman for- mally asking him for the Hoge letters for the benefit of the government in the Babcock case. These he declined to give, but subsequently turned the letters over to the defence. GENERAL SHERMAN ON THE STAND. General W. T. Sherman testified:—I am General of the Army of the United States; 1 have known General 0. E. Babcock intimately; I have known him since 1861, but my better knowledge of him dates from the time he brought me a despatch at Savannah from Gen- eral Grant; since then I have known him almost con- stantly; his reputation has been very good; 1 never heard it questioned until these troubles; I have seen General Babcock a hundred times in the Executive mansion, next the President’s room; it might be called the ante room; those who go to the President see Gen- eral Babcock first, and perhaps accomplish the object of the visit without seeing the President at all; General Babcock aiso opens the letters, distributes them and answers all except the most important; he isa kind of intermediator between the people and the President, “CALL OFF YOUR SCANDAL HOUNDS. ”” Testimony as to good character was also given by General James H. Simpson, of the Corps of Engineers; Gonoral W. S. Harney, Captain L. S, Babbitt, com- manding the St. Louis Arsenal; General 8, B. Sturgqs, in command of this post; Hon. E. A. Borie, ex-Secre- tary of the Navy. At this point ex-Governor Fletcher was put upon the stand and identified several letters from Babcock to Joyce as those placed in his possession a few weeks ago by Mrs, Joyce. Only one of these letters was read ‘at this stage of the trial. It was dated March 17, 1874, and directed to Joyce in San Francisco, It is in reply to Joyce's message to Babcock—“Tell Douglass to call off his scandal hounds, that only blacken the memory of Ford and friends." General Babcock informs Joyce that there are no charge! ainst Ford, and tells him that he believes he (Joyce) was sent to San Francisco because of his high standing with the Commissioner, The defence then introduced two letters from Deputy Commissioner H. C. Rogers to General John McDonald, dated respectively Washington, March 3 and March 22, 1875, to show, as counsel said, that as late as the date of these letters there was no suspicion of General McDonald, either by Mr. Rogers or the de- partment. The first letter asks, on behalf of Mr. Rogers and Commissioner Douglass, that McDonald will find a place as deputy collector in Arkansas or elsewhere for a young man well qualified for such position, and states that such a favor on the part of McDonald would be an accommodation to a member of the Cabinet, The other letter refers to a probability of the appointment of Mr. Douglass to a judgeship of the Court of Claims, and solicits McDonald s influence in his (Rogerg’) behalf for the place to be mado vacant by the retirement of Mr. Douglass. This letter was re- terred to by Mr. Rogers in his testimony. E. A, Warner, cashier of the Lindell Hotel, testified that Hoge was at that hotel in November, 1874, General J, L. Fullerton, lawyer, of this city, testifed to knowing General Babcock in the army during the late war and since then in Washington; his reputation was good, Three gentlemen connected with the Post Office in this city testifled as to the street letter box system here, stating that it was unsafe to deposit valuable let- ters in the boxes and that tne public had been repeat- edly cautioned against doing so; there was no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however, JOYCE'S ZRAL. The defence then introduced several letters from Joyce to General Babcock, written at different times from 1870 to 1873. Some of them enclosed editorials written by Joyce and published in the 8t Joseph (Mo.) Herald on St. Domingo affairs. They were designed to show his zealousness in political matters. Another from Little Rock, Ark., apprised General Babcock of the election of Powell Clayton as United States Senator and stated that this election would carry Arkansas for Grant, and another enclosed resolutions to the memory of Charles W. Ford adopted at a public meeting here soon after that gentleman's death. Answers to these letters were then produced and read, also twoor three others, All of these letters are of a social character, and indicate that the writers of them are on friendly terms, but contain no allusions what- ever to ring matters, or anything connected with revenue affairs. ©. Dickinson, Chief Clerk of the Comptroller's office, Washington, and George 0. Benjamin, connected with the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds under Bab- cock, were then called to identify for the prosecution the signature of Georges Joyce, doorkeeper at the President’s mansion, to whom the despatch of April 23, 1875, addressed to Babcock was traced, but they tafled to satisfactorily identify his signature, The Court thenruled on the three despatches which have been held in reserve two or three days, The fol- lowing was admitted :— “Sr, Louis, Dec. 3, 1874. “General 0. E. Bancock :— “Has Secretary or Commissioner ordered anybody here? a. JOYCR'S MONEY LETTERS RETURNED. James Magill, a letter carrier, then testified:—In the latter part of February, 1875, I was coming down Pine street, near Fifth; Joyce accosted me and said there were two letters in the street letter box which he wished to get back ; he pointed to the box on the sovth- west corner of Fifth and Pine; I asked Colonel Joyce to describe the letters betore I opened the box; he said one was addressed to W. 0. Avery, Washington, D. C., and marked personal in the corner, and the other was to O. E. Babcock, Wasnington, D, C., and also marked personal; I opened the box, although it was off my dis- trict, and searched among the letters and I found the two and handed them to Colonel Joyce, Mr. Storrs—Did you get a receipt? Witness—No, sir. Mr. Storrs—Isn’t it customary? Witness—Yes, it is; I said, “Look here, Colonel, 1 want a receipt; if you want to put them m the mai) again I will go with you and see it done.” Mr. Storrs— What did he say? ‘Witness—He said, “Oh, that’s all right, hunkidori,”” or something like that; “It’s only a blind.” Mr. Storrs—Is it customary to give letters back’ Witness—No, sir, Mr. Storrs—You sometimes ao it? Witness—On « business route wedo frequently; that is, letters are put in and the parties have forgot an en- closure or something like that, and they are returned to them. Mr, Storrs—Did you report that matter to the Post Office ? ‘Witness—No, sir, Mr. Storrs—Why? Witness—Well, i thought it was so frivolous that there was not any need of saying anything about it, Mr. Storrs—Did you usually report? Witness—I usually carried blanks in my satchel, which I had parties sign who wanted letters back, and then I compared the writing. Mr. Storrs—How did you happen to remember the time this occurred? Witnesa—I was house hunting about that time; I had been looking around four or five days for s house; Thad just been to the Polytechnic looking for aman who I had heard had a house; I was on my way down to make a collection; it was my day to collect for seven other carriers, The cross-examination of this witness was long, sharp and thorough. . Witness had been mail carrier five years; never gave letters to Colonel Joyce at any other time; it was a frequent thing to return letters on business routes; recollected the circumstance particularly because it was off his beat; had opened boxes frequently on business streets and returned letters, but could not recollect the names of any persons for whom he had done it, When pressed very closely witness said be had returned a letter to George W. Fishback; had re- turned them to many business houses on Main sirect, but could not swear to any particular firm. He was repeatedly pressed to recollect the name of anybody else for whom he had taken letters out of boxes, but he could not remenrber one. He carried blank receipts with bim ; bad blank receiote with him when be save ceipt, saying, “Ob, that is all right,” ‘“hunkidori,’’ or something of that sort; “WTS ONLY A BLIND;’? it Occurred on the last day of February, 1875, at about one o'clock in the afternoon ; did not tell the Postmaster about the matter nor any one else about the Post Office; mentioned the mattor first last Saturday night to bis wife; had been reading in the papers the testimony of Mr. Everest about putting letters in a letter box, and fecollected he had given Joyce just such letters; ruminated over the matter a while and then told his wife; the next evening (Sunday), after going off duty, went to the Lindell Hotel, saw General Babcock and told him the circumstance, and Babcock sent bim to Judge Porter, to whom he repeated his story, he gave full dotails of the matter to no one but Storrs and Porter outside of his own family; no one had been tosee him about it before he went to tho Lindell Hotel; he consulted with no one but his wife; he re peated the addresses of letters given to Joyce as V. BE. Babcock and Colonel W. 0. Avery; he would not ad- mit that he had talked about the matter to anybody except some letter carriers at the Post Office to-day, Colonel Dyer pressed him very hard, but he would not acknowledge that he had any intercourse or conversa- tion with any other than those mentioned above, The witness then went intoa long account of his various occupations since he had lived in the city, but gave nothing more bearing on the case, Mr. Storrs then asked for the deposition of the Pres- ident, which was produced by the Clerk and it was read by Judge Porter, As several objections had been made to questions and answers, Judge Dillon during the noon recess looked it over and marked the objections overruled or sustained, leaving the deposition, however, 1t 1s said, very nearly in the samo form as it was originally, After reading the deposition Mr, Storrs offered the recommendations in favor of the appointment of General McDonald as Supervisor of this district, but the Court ruled them out, and the defence closed their case, The Court then adjourned. TO-MORROW'S PROCEEDINGS, In rebuttal, the government will, to-morrow, Intro- duce witnesses to shake the credibility of the witness, Mr. Gill, Bingham will be put on the stand, if he rives in time, to testify that the alleged spy, Sherman, obtained the Hogo letters {rom him by the promise that he would in return obtain from the Attorney Gen- eral an order to Dyer to suspend sentence in Bingham's case, The summing up will then begin, and it now looks |’ doubtful whether the case can go to the jury by Saturday night, as was anticipated, Some of the let- ters and telegrams about procuring detectives and other aif for Babcock, now in possession of the government, are signed by A. C. Bradley, in Washington, a son-in- law of “Boss” Shepherd. THE PRESIDENT’S DEPOSITION. BABCOCK’S RELATIONS TO THE CHIEF MAGIS- TRATE—HIS CHARACTER—GENERAL GRANT'S MEMORY NOT PERFECT—HIS RECOLLECTION ON IMPORTANT POINTS QUITE DIM. Sr. Louts, Feb. 17, 1876. The following !s the President’s deposition in full as filed in the United States Circuit Court in the case of General Babcock :— In the Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern District of Missouri.—The United States vs. Orville E. Babcock. Transcript of stenographer’s notes of the deposition of U.S. Grant, for the defendant, taken at Washing- ton, February, 1876:— Direct examination by Mr, Cook.—Q. How long havo you known General Babcock and how intimately? A, Ihave known him since 1863; we first met during the Vicksburg campaign im that year; since March, 1864, I have known him intimately. Q Pleage state in what various capacities he has beén empioyed, and what positions he has held since 1869. A. From about March, 1864, to the 4th of March, 1867, he was aide-de-camp on my military staff; since that time up to the time of his indictment be has been act- ing as my private secretary, and, in addition to that, for several years be has been Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds. Q As your private secretary, please state what were his general duties? A. His general duties were to carry all communications from the President to Con- gress, to have charge and supervision over all of the correspondence, particularly of official correspondence, and in his capacity of private secretary he received my mails, opened my letters and read them. In regard to many of them be gave directions to the department with Teference to me, and such as required any dictation or answer from me he submitted to me. OONPIDENTIAL RELATIONS, Q His relations with you were confidential? A Very, Q@ Do you know whether during the period of time that General Babcock has been your private secretary he has been frequently applied to by persons throngh- out the country to lay their special matters before you or before the various departments? Counsel for the prosecution objected to the question as irrelevant and incompetent to the issues in the case, ‘A. That was the frequent and, you might say, almost daily occurrence, Q In what manner, so far as you have observed with reference to the public interests, has General Babcock discbarged his duties as your private secretary ? Objected to by counsel for the prosecution as imma- terial and irrelevant. A. Lhave always regarded him as most efficient and most faithful. WIS GENERAL REPUTATION, Q Are you acquainted with the general reputation of General Babcock in the city where he bas lived, among his associates and his acquaintances in the army and elaewhere, for honesty and integrity? A. I suppose that] might say that have been acquainted with his general reputation in the army and where he is known; where he bas lived elsewhere I do not know anything about it, but I suppose myself to be acquainted with the reputation he has in the army and in this city. Q Now state, if you please, what his general reputa- tion is and has been? A. I have always supposed it to be good; if twelve years’ intimate association with a man gives one an opportunity of judging what other people think of him [ certainly have had @ good op- portunity, not only of knowing character myself, but of knowing the reputation he sustains, Q And from these opportunities what has been his reputation? A. Good. @ Were you acquainted with ©. W. Ford, of St Louis, in his lifetime, and what, if any, position did he hold at the time of hisdeath? A. I was intimately acquainted with Mr. Ford, first in the State of New York, when I was a lieutenant in the army; he was then a young lawyer, living in the same town where I was stationed; tnen from 1854 to 1860 we were both living in St. Louis county, aud our relations were inti- mate from 1854 up to the day of his death; he was con- nected with the United States Express Company in St. Louis, and from 1869 (but I will not be sure about that, to his death he was Collector of Internal Revenue ot the First Collection District of Missouri, he MAGUIRE’S APPOINTMENT, Q@ State what, if any, applications were made at the time of his decease to the appointment of his successor? Question objected to by counsel for the prosecution ‘a8 immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent. A. It will be impossible for me to remember ail of the applications that were made for the place; I do re. member, however, of General Babcock bringing me a despatch that was addressed to him from John A, Joyce, practically applying for the place, Answer objected to by counsel for the prosecution unless the telegram is produced. Q Have you that despatch? A. I have not. Q Do you know where it is personally? A. No; 1 suppose It could be found; I think very likely either General Baboock’s counse! or the District Attorney at St Lours has it, Q@ Were there any requests or communications with tegard 10 the appointment of Mr. Ford’s successor emanating from bis sureties? Otyected to by counsel for the prosecution as imma- erial, irrelevant and incdmpetent, A, When General Babcock showed me that despatch from John A. Joyce I said to him that Mr. Ford bi died very suddenly and awsy from home I should guided largely in selecting his successor by the reoommendations or wishes of his bondsmen; that I shought they were entitled at least to approve of the appointment of the man who should go in and settle up the affairs of bis office. Answer objected to by counsel for the prosecution on the ground that it ie incompetent for the witness to ant of the nature given, Ps Q What did you ultimately decide to do with refer ence to the appointment, and to whom, if to any one, did you decide to leave the naming of his suceessor ? Objected to by the counsel for the prosecution as ir- relevant and incompetent, A. That was answered in my answer to the previous question, Q Whom did the bondsmen actually recommend ? Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant, A. Constantine Maguire. @ Andon whose recommendation exclusively was he appointed? A. Icould not say on whose recom- mendation exclusively; he was well recommended and satisfactory to the bondsmen of Mr. Ford. Answer objected to by counsel for the Prosecution, unless the recommendativns, if in writing, are Pro- duced, Q Did General Babcock ever in any way, directly or indirectly, urge or request or seek to influence the ap- Ppointment of Mr, Maguire, or did he ever exchange a word with you on the subject which indicated that he desired his appointment? Objected to on the ground ot irrelevancy and incom- Petency. The witness cannot state conversations be- tween himself and defendant. A. I do not think he ever did; Ido hot think he Was aware of the existence of Constantine Maguire be- fore his recommendation, @ Did you inform General Babcock that you in- tended to leave the name’ot Ford’s successor to his bondsmen, and did you request him so to notify these parties? Objected to on the ground of irrelevancy and incom- petency. The question is answered in a previous an- s wer, Q Itembraces, perhaps, this addition. Did you re- quest him to notify the parties ? Same objection as to previous question, A, That part I don’t remember, 1t was not ex- pected or thought of that this would ever become a matter of investigation, and therefore my memory would not be accurate, CORRESPONDENCE ON MAGUIRE, @ Are the telegrams now shown you the ones re- ceived in relation to the appointment of Mr. Maguire? Objected to as immaterial and incompetent, and because the papers do not purport to be originals, A. [have no doubt that these are the despatches, or copies of the despatches, that I received, or if not tele grams similar in tenor to those that were recoived, The papers were marked exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4and 5. Q. There is a letter, Mr. President, conn¥cted with these telegrams, dated January 4, 1876, from D. D, Pratt, Commissioner; will you be kind enough toex- plain how that letter was received by you, and what connection it had with the telegrams? Objected to as tmmaterial, irrelevant and incompe- tent A, The note from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is in answer toa request for me to be fur- nished with telegrams recommending Maguire to the office of Collector. Answer objected to by prosecution as incompetent and immaterial, Q Did General Babcock, so far as you know, ever seek in any way to influence your action in reterence to any charge made or proposed to be made against Joyco or McDonald or either of them ? : Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrele- vant A. Do not remember of his ever speaking to mo on the subject at all; he certainly took no lively interes, in the matter or I should have remembered it, BARCOCK’S INTERCESSION. Q@ Did General Babcock, so far as you know, ever geek in any way to influence your action with reference to any investigation or alleged whiskey frauds in St. Louis or elsowhere ? Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and incom- petent, A. He did not; possibly I might stato right here that I remember but one instance of his ever talking to me atallabout the matter of investigation, except since he bas been Indicted, and then it was simply to say to me that he had asked Mr. Douglass why it was that they threatened all their officials, as though they were dishonest persons, by sending spies to watch them, and asking why they could not make inspections somewhat as they do in the army—send a man of character to their distilleries and take their books and made a report to be relied on; [ believe that he simply tola me that he had said this to Mr. Douglass. Answer objected to by prosecution as immaterial! and incompetent in stating conversations between the ac- cused and witness. Q Doyouremember the circumstance of General McDonald's being in the city of Washington on the 7th of December, 1874? A. I do not remember the par- ticular date; | remember the time in question, Q Ifl understand you correctly, General Babcock's conception was that, in making the investigation, it would be wiser to have it done by men of superior character than by men of inferior and suspicious char- acter? Objected to by the prosecution as immaterial and irrelevant, A Yes, THN RIDE WITH M’DONALD, Q@ Did you ride with him on or about that date or occasion, and was anything said there by him to you with reference to the investigation of alleged fraud in his district ? Objected to by the prosecution as irrelevant and im- material, Conversations between John, McDonald and’ witness are not admissible in any theory of this case. A. I did pick him up on the sidewalk as I was takin, a drive, and invited him to get in and drive with me; have no recollection of a single word of conversation on any matter touching his official position or busi- ness. Q Did General Babcock at or about that time say anything to your knowledge; did he in any way un- dertake to prevent them? Same objection as to previous que: A. I have no recollection of his saying anything about that; he certainly did pot intercede with me wo prevent them. i THR PAMOUS REVOCATION. Q Do you remember th ‘cumstances of the pro- mulgation of any order transterring the various super- visors from their own to other districts? Same objection as to previous question, do. Q State fully with whom the idea upon which that order was based originated, and the particulars of the reasons which induced you to direct it? ‘Same objection. A. Some time while Mr, Richardson was Secretary of the Treasury, | think—at all events before Mr Bristow became Secretary of the Treasury—Mr. Douglass ex- pressed the idea to me that it would be a good plan to occasionally change the supervisors around from one district to another, and! expressed myself favorably to it; but it was not done then and not thought of any more till when it became evident that the Treasury was being defrauded of a portion of the revenue that it should receive from the distillation of spirits in the West; Secretary Bristow called on me and made a general statement of his suspicions, and | then suggested to him this idea; on that suggestion the order making these transfers of supervisors was made; at that time I did not understand tbat thero was any suspicion at all of the officials, but I knew that each one of the officials had his own way of transacting his business; that these distillers have so much uniary intereas in deceiving the officials would Barn their ways and leara how to evade them, and my idea was that by putting new supervisors ucquainted with their duties over them, their crooked ways would be detected; those are tho views I bad and the reasons why I suggested the change. Answer objected to by counsel for the prosecution as incompetent. The reasons why the order was made are not material, Q. Can you state whether Mr. Douglass, at that time Commissioner of Internal Revenue, was aware of the fact that you had sq; or made the order? ‘Same objectiona as to previous question, A. I do not know, Q So fi you personally know? A. I do not know that he knew anything about it, Q Aftor the order had been finally issued were any efforts made Ww induce you to direct its revocation or suspension? Same objection as to the previous question. A. Most strenuous efforts were made, Q Were sucn eflorts made by prominent public men? Bame objection as to previous question. A. They were, Q Did you resist the pressure that was made upon you for the revocation or suppression of the order, and if you finally decided to direct the revocation of that order will you please state why you were induced to do 80 and by whom? pate, ted to as immaterial and irrelevant and incom- A. [resisted the effort to have the order revoked until [ became convinced that it should be revoked or suspended in the interest of detecting frauds that bad been committed; in @ conversation with Su- pervisor Tatton ho stated to mo that if the object of that order was to detect trauds that had already been committed he thought 1t wonld fail; he said this order ‘went into effect on the 1th of February; this was in January when we were talking; that it gavo the distillers who had been byes 9 the Treasury nearly three weeks’ notice to get their houses in order and to be prepared to receive the new supervisors; Wu the new Supervisor would go into the district where fraads might have been com- mitted, and he would find everything in ordor and would so report; that the order might “powubiy ly would result in pin frauds, at detection but bon not. lead to the had al been committed: he said If the order was revoked it would be looked upon as. triumph by those who had been defrauding thé Treasury; “it would throw them off their guard, and we could then send special agents of the Treasul Out to these suspected distilleries; we could send g men, such as one he m ntioned—Mr. Brooks—ne said they could go out and not be known to the di and before they would be uware of it their ways wor Pl be discovered, the proofs would be all complete and then thoy could seize their distilleries and them, and prosecute them; | was so convinced that his argument was good and that it was in the interest of panishin frauds that this order should be suspended, that I tol them | should suspend it immediately, without any further consultation with anybody; I gave the direc tions for the suspension of the order, making the trans fers; my recollection is that { wrote the directions for the order on a card with a pencil, certainly before leav: ing my office that afternoon, and on that the ordet went to the Treasury signed by one of my secretaries, Counsel for the prosecution objects to all conversa tion with Supervisor Tutton, and to the statement uw) the contents of any written document. Q Did General Babcock ever in any way, directly o1 indirectly, seem to imfluence your action in reference to that order? Ubjected to by the prosecution as immaterial and ir relevant, A. I do not think be ever did; I do not remember him ever speaking to me about it or exhibiting any interest in the matter, Q. From anything that he ever said or did, did you know whether he desired that the order should be ro Voked or suspended ? Same objection as to the previous question, A. That, | think, is already fully answered. CONDUCT OF DANCOCK SINCE INDICTMENT. Q. Has General Babcock, so far as you know, or any one for bin, undertaken to prevent @ full or any in+ Vestigation of his alleged connection with what is known as the “Whiskey Ring” at St. Louis or él where? Objected to by counsel for prosecution as irrelevant, ascalling for the judgment of the witness, not for tha acts of the accused, ‘A. To my knowledge he has not; General Babcock has complained very bitterly of bis treatment; after the speech of Mr. Henderson in the Avery trial was de- livered—. Prosecution objects to any statements made by the accused to witness, Q. Since his indictment has any effort been made, to your knowledge, to dismiss the indictment found against him or to eater a nollie prosequi, or to in any, Way interfere with or prevent his trial y ‘Same objection as to previous question. A. No, Q Has General Babcock, so far as you know, used any effort, with yourself or with any one, to pre- vont the finding of indictments against any person sus- pected of complicity with the Whiskey King at Su Louis? Same objection as to the previous question, A. No. @ Since the finding of these indictments against those persons has General Babcock, so far as you know, ever exhibited any desire to interfere with or prevent the trial or exhibited any interest, any wisb in that direction ?* Objected to by the prosecution as incompetent and immaterial and as calling for the judgment of the wit- ness on the acts and conduct of the accussed, ‘A. Not to my knowledge. Q Atthe time the court of inquiry was called at. General Babcock’s request was it not understood by yourself and, so far as you know, by him that no in- dictments would be tound against him, If so, why did you so understand? A Obvjected to as immaterial, irrelevant and incompe- tent, A. No indictment had been found against him; I supposed none would be, because | understood from the Attorney General that the Grand Jury, which waa then in session, would adjourn in a day or two; that was the only course leit to him then, apparently, at the time he made the request. Counsel for prosecution objected to statements or in+ formation derived from the Attorney General, Q Was not that court called because it was supposed that General Babcock could bave no other way of yin- dicating himself? Objected to by the prosecution as leading and ins competent. A. 1 80 understood, Q Was it not called very soon after he was informed that he could not be heard as a witness in that case ? Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant. A. [cannot say any further than his despatch to the District Attorney, asking to be heard. A. Do you know whether he was anxious to ap- Pear as a Witness in that case. Objected to as iinmaterial and frrelevant, A. I cannot say any further than bis despatch to the District Attorney, asking to be heard. Q@ Do youknow whether he did send a despatch to the District Attorngy, for the purpose of being a witness in that case, Objected to by coumsel for the prosecution as im- material and the despatch should be produced, A. 1 know he mi have dove so because I saw the answer which he“teceived from the District At- torney. ‘Auswer objected ta as the despatch of the District Attorney should be produced as the best evidence, Q So far as you know what was the substance of the answer of the District Attorney, Mr. Dyer, to tho telegrams to General Babcock’s desiring to appear as a witness in the Avery case ? Ovjected to by the counsel for the prosecution irrelevant, immaterial and calling for secondary evi- dence. A. He in substance informed him that there would be no more criminal prosecutions till, I think, some time in the following month; 1 do not remember the date accurately. Q And I presume his desire could not be complica with? A. lt amounted to a statement that his desire could not be complied with. ‘Answer objected to by the counsel for the prosecu- tion (or the same reasons as applied to the question. Q Have you ever seen anything in the conduct of General Babcock, or has he ever said anything to you, which indicated to your mind that he was in any way interested in or connected with the Whiskey Ring at St. Louis or elsewhere? Objected to by the counsel for the prosecution as im- material, incompetent and calling for the judgment of the witness on the act of the defendant A. Never. Q. In what manner, as regards the public interests and as evincing his fidelity and integrity, has he per- formed bis duties as your private secretary ? Same objection as to the previous question. ‘A. Always to my entire and full satisfaction, Q Have you in any form observed or learned anything in connection with Genera! Babcock’s conduct which has tended to diminish your confidence in his fideiity and integrity, and is that confidence in bis fidelity and integrity still unimpaired and undiminished ? Same objection as the next preceding question. A. [always had great confidence in his integrity and bis efficiency, and as yet my confidence in bim is un- shaken; I have never learned anything that would shake that confidence; of course | know of this trial that is progressing. ‘CROSS-EXAMINATION by Mr. Eaton:—Q General, of course you do not sup- pose, do you, that while General Bubcock has been ecretary and in intimate and confidential you, aay one would voluntarily come to you with statements injurious to bis reputation ? Objected to by counsel for defendant A. I do not know any such thing. @ Porhaps you are aware, General, that the Whiskey Ring have persistently tried to fix tbe origin of that Ring in the necessity (or funds'to carry on the politi- cal campaigns. Did you ever have any intimation from General Babcock or any one else, in any manner, directly or indirectly, that any funds for political pure poses Were being raised by any Improper methods? Question objected to by counsel lor the detendang A. Lnever did. 1 have seen since these trials inti+ mations of that sort in the newspapers, but before. @ Then let mo ask you if the prosecuting officers have not been entirely correct in repelling all insinua- tions that you ever had talerated any such means for raising funds? ‘Objected to by counsel for defendant. A. | was not aware that they attempted to repel any insinuations, Q Speaking of C. W. Ford, I presume, Gene that your confidence in him continued up to the time of bis death? ‘A. [never had a suspicion that anything was wrong. Q Did you regard bis knowledge of men and affairs in St. Louis a8 trustworthy ? A. Tad as much contidence in him that way as any man I knew in St Louis. Q oe did you cease to reside in St. Louis, Gene eral ‘A. In May, 1860. Q From 1360 down to the time of Mr Ford’s death, Mr, Ford’s residence was also im St. Louis? A. Yes, sir. Q Did you have private correspondence with Mr, Ford during the time he was Collector ? bgp yy to by counsel for the defendant.) A. Laid, Q Did you preserve tho correspondence? A. No; I never kept a copy of a letter I sent to him in my life. CONFIDENCE IN FORD, Q Did you preserve letters that you received from him? A. No, sir; I did not preserve those letters; corresponded regularly, because I bad such contd jo bim that I left him to conduct my own al and | bad to be constantly sending him m: send @ check of $1,000 and $1,200 ata he would pay out the money and account ome it my confidence in him was such that I did this without even saving the letters, Counsel for the prosecution objects to the latter part of the answer as not responsive to the question. Q Do you remember a letter of Mr. Ford to yourself dated May 30, 1870, in which he spoke of McDonald as “a bad egg,” and as saying to you that be was a dis- credit to the administration? } be ed to by counsel for the defendant. A. Was that before or after McDonald's appointment? . Q .It was shortly atter McDonald was appointed, very early in that year, if recollect. A. I have norrecollec- tion of such a letter; have an indistinct recollection that when McDonald was first recommended for the position be told me, either in a letter or in a conversa- tion, that McDonald would not do; my recollection is, that Anally be united with others in recommending) McDovald; | nave a general know! that about the time McDonald was being pressed for appointment - Ford thought it was pot a suitable appointment; but my recollection is that afterward acquiesced " and possibly either joined in the recommendation, | which was & written one, and will be on dle in the = Department, or cise he told me in a conversa- jon. Q Do you remember whether John A. Joyce we recominended to you as Ford’s successor by Babcock? A. He was not, Q Was anything said to you by General Pabcock be- tween the time of the death of Ford and the fe» ment of Constantine Maguire touching Joyce's iiness for the place? A. Babcock presented me a despaten | that he received from Joyce, saying that he was an, applicant or Seaiking application ‘or it; Ldo not remems bor the wot of it; the nee of It was that he wanted to be Svrcessor; my feply to him waa ‘that [ should be guided largely im selecting phe wyccemy ae