The New York Herald Newspaper, April 1, 1876, Page 3

WASHINGTON. Unexpected Disclosures Against Babcock. The Belknap Inquiry Opens An- other Sink of Iniquity. HOW CONVICTION WAS ESCAPED. Detective Bell Employed to “Do Away” with Evidence, Attorney General Pierrepont and Secre- tary Chandler’s Roles. eR OES WAS THE PRESIDENT COGNIZANT? Bow the Witness Relented and Sherman Was Used Instead. PIERREPONT'S LETTER WRITING,’ Report of the Judiciary Committee. HIS FLIMSY EXCUSES PULLED TO PIECES. FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, ‘Wasmiseton, March 31, 1876. STARTLING EFFECT OF THE DISCLOSURES CON- CEBNING THE BABCOCK TRIAL—INTERVIEWS ‘WITH CHANDLER AND BABCOCK. The testimony of C. 8. Bell before the Clymer com- mittee to-day created a profound impression, He said im conversation after the close of bis examination that he had told the truth, and that if his actions seemed iméonsistent it was because he started out with a firm behef that Babcock was innocent and was the victim of a political persecution; that he acted in good faith to defeat what he supposed wero tho machinations of Babcock’s and the President’s enemies until he be- tame satisfied of Babcock’s guilt, when he was asked to obtain and destroy the evidence against him, and that then he had dropped the matter, and so far as be had done anything had worked in the interest of justice. ‘The principal points in this testimony were thathe had frequent conversations with the President, who wishea te know whether Babcock was guilty or not, and seems Yo have taxen this queer way of discovering it by em- ploying a detective to get a look at the evidence inthe government’s hands, some of which the President mppears to have suspected to be false or forged. The President sent him first to the Attorney General for an @ppointment, who delayed and finally told him that a high official in the Treasury had advised him not to send Bell to St. Louis; then to Secrotary Chandler, who appointed him on the Prosident’s recom- mendation, Bell saya that he was enjoined by Babcock and some of his lawyers to get the testimony against Babcock and bring.it to the Lindell Hotel to be there destroyed; thas Babcock told him he must get it all, asto get only a part would be useless; ‘that when be became satisfied of Babcock’s guilt he dropped the matter, having meantime got access to Dyer’s papers aud looked at some of thom, and that Roger Sherman was afterward sent out to St Louis from New York to do what Boll had retused or tailed ‘to do, and did turn over certain documents to Babcock’s counsel. in confirmation of Bell’s testimony the following points turn up here from different sources, Secretary Chandler says he appointed Bell at the request of the President, and that afterward he dismissed him on the Presiaent’s motion, General Grant telling him that Bell was a scoundrel, Bell says he was dismissed Shree days after he reported to the President that, Im bis belief, Babcock was guilty. It is known also that Bell did get access to Dyer’s papors in St, Louis, and that a detective or watchman caught him in the act of replacing some papers he had taken out, It is also known, independently of Bell’s testimony, that She cipher, he had and which was published in the Hspatp was mostly in Luckey’s handwriting. This was known here at tho time it was published. It was also known here at that time that Bell had access to the President, Among persons who have had the means to be thoroughly informed of the-secret manip- ulations in the Babcock case Bell’s testimony is re- garded as true in all its main statements and prob- ably entirely true, and it is certain that corroborating circamstances other than those mentioned can be ang ‘probably will be discovered, INTERVIEW WITH SECRETARY CHANDLER, A Heratp correspondent called on Secretary Chand- fer and sent up his card this evening. ‘The Secretary came in smiling and said, “You have ome to ask me about Bell, I only read the report of his testimony late this afternoon.’’ The Secretary wenton to say that Bell’s inference and assertion that he (Chandler) had an understanding with the President or any one else that the witness ‘was employed for General Babcock was totally false, ‘but Mr. Chandler ssid that Bell was recommended to bim by the President, aud the recommondation was written on o card to tho effect that Bell ‘was a good detective and would be a proper man to put on the secret service force of the Anterior Department. Not long after this General Hurl- ‘Dut, of Iilinois, or some other officer of rank in the army, called at the Secretary’s office and saw Boll’s ard lying on the aesk, whereupon tho General said that Bell was a good spy and was u valuable man so employ on secret missions requiring detective talent. He bad known bim in the army anu employed bim asaspy. He had also known him as a soldier. Bell proved competent and faithful, and was pro- moted. THR PRESIDENT’S CHANGE OP OPINION. After this Secretary Chandler gave Bell a place on Bis secret service forco under the chief, Mr. La Barra, ‘and he saw nothing more of him nor heard anything of him for several weeks. One, day the President told him (the Secretary) that he was mistaken about the character of Detective Bell. He had thought he asa good man, but had found that ne was a scoun- Grel, and he wanted him removed. At this the Secre- tary ordered Beil’s discharge. A month or two later Bell applied for his pay, having recetved nono since he was Bret engaged. The chief of the detectives was con- sulted and hesaia he did not know. what Bell had lone to warrant payment, Secretary Chandler then Wefused to pay. He said he would sign no vouchers for employés who did nothing, and to this @uy the Secretary did not know whether Bell bad received @ cent from the department, Verbaps General Cowen might have signed his vouch. ‘sand the mau received pay, but not through Mr. Chandler, Mr. Chandier did not remomber that Luckey bad spoken a word to him in favor of Beli or wen mentioned his name. The only persons who vouched for him were President Grant and General Hurlbat, He did not recollect where the President was when he spoke im Bell's behalf, He believed it was at a Cabinet meeting. INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL BARCOCK, General Babeock was also interviewed this eveging athis house, He seemed to anticipate the object of the. visit, and as soon as Bell's name was men. Siowed he said, with emphasis, “Bell's story isa tissue of Hes from beginning to end.* TER ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ‘The Judiciary Committee having to-day reported a Tesolution condemning the Attorney General’s letter to district attorneys, “discouraging witnesses,” and Gadlaring that he ought to revoke 11, it comes out this he did revoke it saortiy aster tae com- | — FROM ‘OUR REGULAR CORRESPONDENT. Wasmsoros, March 31, 1876. DEEP CORRUPTION IN THE LAND OFFICE. ‘Mr. Buxton, tormerly «clerk in the Land Office and alleged to be deeply implicated in the land trauds re- cently unearthed by Secretary Chandler, was reported to have fled to Califorma a few weeks agu. He has just | returned to the city and turned States evidence. His disclosures are of most damaging character showing | extensive frauds which had been systematically carried on for yeara, Many persons are implicated and further developments are pending. THE SILVER RESUMPTION ACT THROUGH HOUSE, The House to-day passed the Silver Resumption bill with Reagan’s amendment, making the silver doar o legal tender in single payments to the extent of $50 and the smaller silver coins to the extent of $25, The Senate will doubtless pasa the bill. The whole ques- tion of silver will receive elaborate treatment at the hanas of Senator Jones, of Nevada, who bas prepared | a lengthy speech on the subject. SENATOR BRUCE AND AFFAIRS IN MISSISSIPPI When Senator Braco heard how things were going in | Mississippi the other night, he exclaimed with an em- | phatic oath thattho State had gone to rum, It was’ | past saving Ho also declared that he should not speak | on Mississippi afuirs when Morton brought them up. | He since changed his mind and made a characteristic speech to-day, a SEW YORE apPornTMENT. | The name of Stephen B. French was sent into the Senate to-day by the President for confirmation as Ap- praiser ot Merchandise for the port of New York, vice Darling, resigned, AN INJUSTICE CORRECTED. An error in the press reports concerning the work of the committee on the real estate pool has done in | Justice to some of the members of that committee, For ‘instance, the able legal argument on the subject of retaining the recusant witness Hallett Kilbourn in the custody of the House as against the demand for his body by the locat courts, was made by Mr. JepthaD. New, of Indiana, instead of Mr. Glover, to whom it ‘was inaccurately credited. GENERAL WASHINGTON DESPATCHES. ee EE ee e Wasurnorox, March 81, 1876. DEMOCRATIO CAUCUS ON THE IMPEZACHMEXT ‘TRIAL—THE MANAGERS. A democratic caucus was held to-nigi:t, sontiaulag till half-past eleven o’clock, for tho pt electing managers to conduet the impeachment t. al of ex-. ~ retary Belknap befure the Senate. The following nated gentlemen were chosen by bal- lot:—Messrs, Lord, New York; McMahon, Ohio; Knott, Kentucky; Lynde, Wisconsin, aud Jenks, Penn- sylvania, democrats; and Wheeler, New York, and Hoar, Massachusetts, republicans, THE BABCOCK TRIAL INVESTIGATED. Wasuinotox, March 31, 1876. Ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Sawyer de- nied to-day, before the Committees en Expenditures in the War Department, that he had ever carried any memoranda of B, Gordon Daniels to the Secretary of War, upon which bis commission as post trader was revoked, nor had Daniels any arrangement with @ man named Tracy concerning the payment of money for the post. Witness never knew there was a money bargain between Tracy and Daniels until so informed by the Secrotary of War. He then told Tracy that he would have Daniels removed, which was done. Before the same committee, C. 8. Beli testified as follows :—I reside in Jackson, Miss; in June, 1872, I think, I care to Washington to apply for a post trader- ship in Texas, Fort Davis, or any other post I could | and I propose to inquire about bim now, A. NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, APRIL 1, 1876,—TrRKIPLE SHEET. appointed ? A. I suppose he ‘that the President — Mr. Luckey both spoke pefsonally about appointing me; pointment dated January 5. (The witness produced his appointment as first class clerk in the Pension Office. le explained that there was no such office as special agent under the Interior Department, the men acting as such being 8 detailed for Ubat duty.) Q What was your salary? A. Twelve hundred dol- Jars a year and $3 per diem and travelling expenses, cggreenting sheas 2,195 a year; I entered on the ol on the 7th of January last; the list of cases was sent tome at St. Louis to be worked up, but I never worked them up. THR WAR SECRETARY'S AVOINDUPOIS. In cross-examination by Mr. Dantord the witness Stated that the reason he did not go to the President and tell him that Secretary Belknap had proposed to him Se: for a it tradership was that the Secre- tary of War weighed somewhat more than hedid, and he did not think tt would do to attack him. Mr. Clymer—Under that appointment were you in- terested in the Babcock case in St. Louis? A No, I was not. Q, Were you sent out there to take any partin it? A. No, sir, not under this appointment. 'Q Under any appointwent? A. No, sir. Q Were you never employed in any way in connec- tion with that case? A. Not by the government. Q By whom, then—General Babcock? A, (hesitat- ingly)—No, I cannot say that I was. Q By his counsel? A. No, sir. ; @ By anybody for him? A. By some one acting for | him; i suppose acting for him; they said they were; I | was employed in November. 4 @ What services were you to render under that em- ployment? A. (alter a pause)—I would like a little Sania upon that matter, so as to put it in ‘Qi only want the trath; it Js not very hard to tell j that. A. I do not know ‘as that bas abything to do | with this case, | Q We will determine that after we hear it. I only | wantto know who employed you? A. In regard to | those St, Louis whiskey matters? @ Yes. General Babcock is an officer of the poet ell, was employed by Mr. Luckey, the private secretary of | the President. j HOW BABCOCK’S RSCAPR WAS MANAGED. @ What were you to do for Mr. Luckey? A. To | make it as brief as possible, | was to look into the hands of the District Attorney there, Colonel Dyer, and sec what evidence there was inst Gen Babcock. ~Q You were sent by Mr. Luckey, then, to yo out there and inquire what case there was against General Babcock? A. I was thero at the tume, @ Did Mr. Luckey write to you? A. No, sir; I met | him there at the hotel, Q. How were you todo it? A, I wus simply to visit the District Attorney’s office, as I had the run of the office there, and see what evidence there was, @ Did you go there and get holdof it? A. Lid. — With the consent of District Attorney? A. ‘0, sir. @ You got it surreptitiously, thea? A. I did. Q Did you turnish what you got to Colonel Luckey? A. I did; that was in November at the Lindell Hotel. | Q Was there any other person connected with Colonel Luckey that you know olf A.A gentleman named A, C. Bradley, of Washington, who said he was acting a8 one of the counsel for Geveral Babcock. @ What information did you turnis Luckey? A. I told him that the evidence against General Babcock at that time was weak; I did not give him copies of any apers. ~ eo Had you read the evidence against Babcock that was in the District Attorney’s olfice? A. Ob, no; I only knew from what I heard In tne office and what Colonel Dyer bimself told me. Q. Did Colonel Dyer know that you were the agent of Luckey? A, No, sir; not at thattime. Suvse- quently he did. Q Did you look over the papers in tbat office? A. Some of them. one you read them all? A. I read a good many did; L[know @ Is this cipher in Luckey’s handwiisiug? 4. | him | Most of it 4 your ever communicate with henge | by means of this cipher? A. I did not, because | was Bot appointed by the Attor General to go out there. COMMUNICATING WITH THE PRESIDENT. Q@ How did you communicate the information to the President tyou believed that Bubcock was guilty’ A. I went three times and tried to have an inter ith bim and failed, and then! put the thing hape that I could get it to him; I got it to bim through a Idid not care u hands ol any one thereto goto the President; I had made up my mind that the case was in such « shapo that I could do nothing further on it wud L dropped i. Q@ What newspaper did you make that publication inf A. In the New York Hexavv. I marked a copy and sent it to the President and I have reason to be- hheve that it reached him. @ In your conversation with Babcock in regard to this matter did you say to him that you had proot of his guilty A. No, sir. I told him what evidence there was. Other evidence came in just before | left thero and I told him what the evidence was, so far as I knew, He repeatedly said to me that there were papers and telegrams of bis, which, if the prosecution got hold of 1t would be almost impossible tor bim to explain, I = frequently for a period of perhaps threo woel Q Who paid you for the services you rendered out there A. I received very little pay indeed; perhaps $200, It was paid to mo by Messrs, Bradle; cock, When i went away from St, Louis had given | up the case; but when I received this communication from Mr. Bradicy I gave up a position that was mapas me about $200 a month to come on here, and then, alter a delay of about five weeks, I received this ap- pointment in the Interior Department, and three days utter 1 communicated this information to the President L received wy congé. Q Were you to‘be employed in the District Attor- ney’s oflico at St, Louis by Bradley, Luckey and Bub- coek for any other purpose than tv attempt to prevent the conviction of Babcock? A. That was whut they understood, but the President cid not understand it that way at all; at least 1 believe be did not; he suid fulse testimony, or any prejudice against the detendant, ck was guilty ho wanted him punished; that is Q D opiaion, Babcock was guilty? A. 1 hud not arrived at aig Did you ever till it to Luckey? ~ 1 did not, Q. Do you mean by that that they knew he was be Very dilfivuit for him to explain. Occasion—reports, notes and memoranda in regard to tothe District Attorney to his tutt satisiaction; J be- to District Attorney byer; he understands the whole Q He was entirely satisfied with your conduct in Ignow that it is necessary to explain to the committee, apy negotiations bere in Washington with reference to Storrs; none otber that I remember, em, Q Where did you get the papers in the oflice? A. On the table and in the drawers. told you to render him? A, It was. BELIRY IN RABCOCK’s GUILT. Q. He told you to go there und find——? A. To go and find out alil could. 1 wish to state that at that time I believed trom the conversations I heard in the men outside that this attempt to implicate General Bab- cock was made for the purpose of injuring President Grant, whom I had served as a scout during the war, and ior whom [ had a strong regard; these men claimed to be strong friends of Bristow’s; | saw many telegrams that passed between Washington and* tho District attorney there, and others, aud it looked that way ; | believed that unttl another matter came up there, and then I thought the parties: out there were acting | without authority, and were, perhaps, overanxious, i and I believed it unti! {came to Washington; when f came here I found that 1 was on the wrong track and | I dropped the case, and | took measures aiterward to | cause information to reach the President that that idea Was wrong. @ That Babcock was not guilty? A. Thas Babcock get; 1 had recommendations from many officers of the army, including one from General Reynolds, under whom I had served in 1869 and 1870, in the secret ser- vice, in hanting down some of the murderers of the freedmen and army officers; when I came to Washington” 1 went to the office of the Secretary of War, sent hy AGS and, stn 1 came into bis presehce red “to know what £ wanted, and I told him that 1 wished to secure a post tradership; Ihad in my hands a number of recom- mendations from different officers for services ren- dered during the war and afterward; he seemed con, siderably offended at my calling on him on that basi- ness, and said if he had known that that was the ob- Ject of my visit he should not have seen me; I told him it would not take me but a very brief time to get out of his office; I went out, and liad got to the tur- ther end of the building when a young man came out somewhat in a hurry; 1 assumed that he belonged to the department from the iuct that he had no hat on; he sata that the Secretary desired to see me, and I ‘went back. “CAN YOU PAY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS?” When I went in the Secretary told me that he had been greatly annoyed by various applicants for these posts; 1 do not remember exactly what shape the con- versation took, but I know he asked me what the post was worth; I told him I did not know; he said, “Is it worth $2,000 a year?” I supposed he was merely ask- ing mé as a matter of opinion as to the value of such posts there, and I told him J supposed it was worth that; said he, “Can you pay $2,000a year?” there ‘was very little more said, and | went away. @ In that conversation did you distinctly under. stand him to ask you to pay him $2,000 for it? A. Well, owing to the nature of the conversation tha, occurred before I went out I rather thought he was trying to trap me, toget me into some sort of un offer, perhaps; 1 did not choose to go apy further with it, and 1 let the matter drop; I bad no direct recom- mendations for Fort Davis, nor did 1 make any appli- cation in writing; 1 had never mes the Secretary pre- viougly, andI thought the conversation was rather ; 1 did not think from the nature of the ser- vice | had rendered I ought to tor ot 1 idered it an Neagle to entrap me, on account of the words that had passed between us. @ [Do you know Colonel Goodfellow? A. Yes. Q Do ‘you know Mr. Crosby? A. I have met him thre¢ or iour times in regard to business matters. Q. \Do you know anything with regard to those gt tlemen? A. I do bot; Major Govdiellow was Judg Advecate General at the time; I was with General Rey tolds, and he bad cognizance of a good deal of my work done then. Q. Have you over informed any one that Secretary | Bell used his Chief Clerk, Mr. Crosby, and Colonel w or any army officer on duty in the War De- parti jt as agents und ‘go betweens"’ in matters of this kind? A, No, sir; not to my knowledge; 1 have owledge of anything of the kind. TALK ON THE FRONTIER. Q. Have you ever heard any post traders in Texas talk’about what they paid for their posts? A. Oh, yes; it t# common talk in San Antonio and Austin. Q Did you ever make any other ig eegree to the Secretary of War than the one you have spoken ot? A. No, sit; one was enough for me. @ What business are you engaged in now? A. Iam on detective work; nut at present under the govern- meat, Q Youwerea detective and scout for years in Texas? A. Yes, sir; I have also been acting us special agent of the Internal Revenue Department. Q Who appointed you? A. Mr. Chandler. Q Have you rendered any revent service to that de- Venger A. None since the 16ti of February of thus year, e ayes persovally acquainted with Mr, Chand- ler. A. Lam, THE PRESIDENT’S RECOMMENDATION. Q Did he appoint you at bis own motion, and, if not, at whose solicitation? A. The President of the Cuited States, pi Are you acquainted with bim personally? A. ‘ea, str. Q@ How long have you known him? A 1 have served bim at intervals »: 1862, Q@ Had you his recommendation when you went to the Secretary of War! A. | had. Q Had you General Reynolds’? A I did not ask any but the President’s; the recommendation was of such wer that 1 did not think I ueeded any ou @. Have you got that recommendation of the Presi- dent with you? A. I have now you send for it? A. Ido not think I can present. Q wi time was it dated? A. The latter part of Devemnber, 1875. @ Then this recommendation you now speak of was @ recom mendativa to the of the Interior asa dezectives A. it did not specify that; ‘Was guilty. REWARD FOR CANDOR, Q@ You wformed the President that Babcock was | oes A. [took measures to inform him that I be- peved he wi tity; 1 did 1 because the President hat if General Bavoock was guilty he it; he wished nothing concealed, and he wished him pu ;, Look the President at bis word and informed him of it, aud I got my dismissal im bree fm fo gaded ot feeaheson ea prpscroveny A. Fi tly; probably in to this uently; pro! a dozen times alter I arrived here th Deoemaber. BABOOCK’S ADMISSIONS, '@ If at any time General admitted to you that bo was guilty piease state it’ A. His admission was clear enough. It they wanted me to get evidence out of the office and destroy it 1t was clear enough. | Q Did he admit to youthat he wasguiity? A. [told hini what Bradley asked me to do in 3t, Louis, aud in- Stead of dissenting he said that be did not wish me to get the evidence out of that office unless | could get the whole of it; that if] got part of it 1s would be worse than none, Q. What had Bradley asked you to do? A. He had asked me to get the evidence out of the office and | bring it 10 the Lindell hotel. Ww was to bo done with it there? A, De- stroy it Q. Was Colonel Luckey present when Bradley told you todo that? A. I beheve uot; I believe this was in Brad- ley’s room, No. 165, in the Lindell Hotel; the propost- tion was made aiter Luckey came Kast in the latver part of November; I went down with Bradley and uckey to the depot when Luckey went to tuko the | train bo go East, and he told me to consult with Brad- | Jey, that Bradley was there in the interest of General Babcock, and this whole move was not against Bab- cock but against the President, and for me to consult with Bradley and to act with him. Q And Bradley told you to get that evidence out of the District Attorney's office, and bring it to the Lin- dei! Hotel to be destroyed? A. He did. Q Did you attempt to get it? A. No, sir; I did not. Q@ Why didn’t you? A. Well, 1 thought that was going rather too fur in the matter. @ You had told him all you knew of it? A. Yes. @ When you ca: here you say you had » conversation with General Babcock’ A. Yes; I met him at No. 2,100 Pennsyivani wenue, (The witness produced @ memorandum of the number of the house, given him, he said, by Luckey.) In that conversatien 1 related all 1 had’ seen and heard in St. Louis, and I told him of this proposal of Bradley’s; be said he did not want me to got it unless I got the whole of it; that part of it would be worse than none; the matter was talked over between us aiter- wards and he remarked that if I got it | would be well rewarded; I told nim I didg’t #ko to gointoit; I also.met his counsel, Mr. Stores; | was at General Baboock’s house six or seven times, TAKING THE PRESIDENT AT HIS WORD. Q@ What occurred there when his counsel was pres- ent? A. There was pis deal of taik; I gave them a | written report of all that 1 bad seen aud heard at st | Louis; I bave not a copy of the report; General Babcock, I suppose, has the report; I had given them that report previous to this talk ‘about getting | the evidence, and up to the time of making that report I still thought that the matter was intended as a political move; but when I | found owt that 1 was wrong I dropped it and went irom here to New York on the 19th of January, and did not return to Washington until about the 8th or 9th of F then took the President ut his word and res to send him information that Genoral | Babcock was guilty; I should bave’stated that I gave the thing up altor Mr. Bradley lett St. Louis, which ‘was a night or two after Mr. Luckey leit, and went to Lexington, Ky.; from there I wrote to Mr.' Bradley and askea him to return my letter, and he did so, ac- companied by the follo wing:— Wasutxeton, Dec. 9, 1875. C. 8. Bet, Eeq. :— ‘Yours received to-day, and herewith returned. I am auchorized to request you_ to come on immodiately, and to 2 ‘will be eared for, Yours truly, A. U. BRAVLEY. ¥ Staxer, It was intended that I should be appointed special agent in the Attorney General's office, and sent to St. Louis to continue my work, and here is the key of the cipher that was given to me to communicate with, [The witness bere produced the original of the ey ” published in the New York Hxeaiv on Februagy 10.) TUR INTENDED APPOINTMENT. Q Were you apgointed in the Attorney General's office? A. I was not, but l was to be appormted and! had a card irom the President to Attorney General fete, ut similar to the one I had to Secretary Jhandler. Q@ Acard asking to have you inted special agent’ A, Ivdid not say so; it said, “This is the man of whom I spoke jor that appointment,” or something | to that effect. Q Why were you not appointed? A. That was about the Lith of December aud the Attorney General de- layed the appointment from day to day and finally went off with the Congressional excursion to Philadei- } phia and when he came back he was delayod; I re- ported to the President two or three times that the uppointment had not been made, and I finally found out that the Attorney General was in consultation with ub bere ig sa haere he said that he had asce: tal that Mr. Dyer woald consent to my work: in his office any longer; L asked the Attorney ti how he knew that; he told me that he had had a con- ashe expressed it, a bigh official that ntiy; Lasked him why he had disctosed olticial, and said to him that if I wayout appori 4 was neral recommendation to give me au ap- pointment; it wason acard; I think it ran something hike the a }, Beeret of the In- terior—I commend bid the bearer, bir. C. 8. Bell, for an appointment, bas valuable ser- Tail side ofthe card aude Gorton ef toe ethers T ume T; handed 1 (0 the Seoretary of ihe lmervues 1 wean tnae a or two alterward to get it, and he could pot fina it, although he had a very search made, @ Un thas recommendation the Beeretary of the that he wished to know it, and 1 was to make my re- ge to the Attorney General, and that it General President said from the start, you tell the Attorney General that, in your that point at that ume, i @ Did you at any time tell him that? A. No, I did Q Dia you ever tell Bradley so? A. It was not necessary; thoy tully understood the case. guilty? A. Ido not say that; they, however, thought there were many documents in existence thas it would Q@ Did you ever take uny documents out of the Dis- trict Atiorney’s office in-St. Louis’ A. I did on one the Avery maiter—but they were chiefly matters that had been published beiorc; 1 have explained that all lieve I took one telegram away trom there, a telegram from Bluford Wilson, but that has all been explained matter, and was perfectly satisiied with the explana- tion, trying to get his papers away from nim? A. Well, there is an understanding there, and that Ido not @ Ido notcare about it if tt would be detrimental to the public service. With whom else did you have the Babcock matter, save Luckey, Bradley, the Attor- ney General and the President? A. His counsel, Mr. Q Did you vever have any interviews with a lawyer }emaimed Cook about this matter? A. No, I do not know Q@ Was that the secret service that Colonel Luckey [ him. Q@ Or witha man named Benjamin? A I do not know him. THX ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POSITION, Q@ Do you know a clerk of General Babcock? A. I do not know his name; I know one by sight, rather a District Attorney's office and among many influential | deat man, with spectacles; I never had any consulta- tion with hum about it; I never mentioned our busi- ‘ness in that office at all; the Attorney General seemed to be averse to this arrungement from the fact that he delayed my appointment trom day to day. Q That is, he was averse to your going out there to play the spy'on Colonel Dyer? A. os ‘he seomed to ; | went directly from the White House to the At- torney General with that card from the President and Istatedto him exactly what the President told me, ho wished to know it, and that if Babcock was guilty ho wanted bim punished; the Attorney General said, “1 imtendea te an otticial came to night, I will say a very high official, whom I met upon special occusions;”? I Understood him to mean the Secretary of the Treasury, aud I pointed out of the window where we were sitting toward the Treasury Depart- mont and said, “If you havo said anything in that quarter there 18 no use in my going;’’ the Attorne; id, “It is not the Secretary, but it is a hig! , and,” gaid he, “under the circumstances, it is se for you to go out there;”’ I said, “No, but you s to have let me find that out tor myself.” Q You know then that the nead of tne Treasury De- ent would not have approved of your mf out to play the spy on District Attorney rh AL Most assuredly, ¢ ‘THE PRESIDENT'S OBJECT. Q. When you got that card from the President was it understood between you and him that tue purpose of it was to got you an appuintment? You were to go to St. Louis and through the District Attorney’s office and to ascertain whether there was a evidence that would show Babcock’s guilt. Was that the object of the President in sending you there’ A, fhe ject, as I any reasonable ground for believing General Babcock guilty, and that if that was so the President wished ‘was being made to make political capital out of it, or, fn otber words, to persecute an innocent man, the Prerident wished to know it; but he trusted in my judgment and | was not to report to him but to the Attorney Geuoral, Q According to your judgment the object of the President in sending you there was a pro; to aseeriain whether General Babcock was guilty, but under cover of that appoimtment the Attorney Goneral and Bradley, Luckey and Babcock were going to ue not the Attorney General. Q But the others—Bradley, Babcock and Luckey— wished you to go there and roy the evidence? A. that I had no mtoation of go here belore, se I thought my first duty was to the President, and, if I tound afterward proot of Babcock’s guilt my intention was, as I proved by my subsequent action, to iniorm the President of it as he had requested, Q@ And as svon as you did inform him you wi turned out of the position you had recoived unde! eo Interior Department? A. Yoa;1 do not say, though, that the President had Y siting y hand in cancelling my ata, ag oar ay Orrice, } Wasuinaton, D, ©., Feb. 15, 1876. Sin—You ace hereby directed’ to reiurn ‘at Guce to. this office ‘the of payers in your possession. Very respect- fully. CHARLES K GILL. Cusates 8. Bait, No. 1,27 Chateau avenue, St. Louis, Derantuent or tu Inrenion, ) Orrick O” tH BuCRETARY ‘aamixatox, D. C., Feb. 14, 1870. § Sin—Your services aa elerk of class 1 in the Pension Of- Bee will be dispensed on and alter this ye fuuly, CHANDLER. I will state that on my arrival at St. Louis, on the night of the 14th of February, I had a consuitation with District Attorney Dyer at his house, at which there were present Mr. Day, whom I believe I knew in this city, aud Mr, Eaton, assistant counsel; | explained all this matter to Colonel Dyer as tully as I have ex- plained it to (he committee, and he understood what I was doing; he knew a great deal of what was going on of which it is not necestary to state to the com:nit- tee, ‘MR. SHRRMAN’S KFFORTS AT ST. LOUIS, Q@ You were employed on both sides then? A. No; Bot atall, Q I thought ba said that Colonel Dyor knew what you were dome? A. He knew what I was doing; thore was an understanding, aod when Rogers M. suermen came out irom Mr, Bliss’ office, in New York, he got the books and papers in Mr. Hogue’s case, and itis susceptible of proof that they wero turned over to G eral Babouck’s counsel; and he jurthermore attempted to carry out, in the District Attorney's office, the mis- siod on which I was to have been sent, but, | having in- formed Colonel Dyer of that mission, Mr. Sherman's iS Qa What ouher loyed by Babe Osher peryons were emplo: cock, Bradley and Luckey 1n this same torviest’, A. Tao not know of any other; I wish the committee to draw the distinction if they will that as as I believed Bab- cock innovent | was willing to help him, but as soun as 1 believed him guiity— @ You threw up the sponge? A, Yes. Q. Have they paid you any more since you threw up A. No, sir; 1 bave nover met them since; ‘they desired to see me several ever have any communication at all with youn aoe La mt Mg this mutter? A, ; @ wil toe Toute som. ju ilson before I went ‘ere you careful to conceal if movement: froin Secretary Bristow? A. At the time of the ince. Vion of the plan and until it arrived at the point I nave stated I was, Q Did ever see other telegrams that passed between and 4 members of tho Whisk Ring, save those that were him: A. I have never other @ Did you the bh and Bab- j to me that he wished me to see what was going op, and | if there was any attempt made to introduce torged or | that if there was any innocent party to be prosecuted | understood it was to ascertain whether there was | to know it, and if he was innocent and ap attempt | F one | you for the purpose of destroying evidence? A. No; | they wished me to do that; I will say here, how- | Q Was any other member of the President’s house- hold implicuted, save General Babcock? A. General Babeock and Colonel Luckey; | don't think Colonel Luckey had anything to do with the whiskey matter; T never saw the slightest evidence of it Q Then, as | understand it, you, Babcock, Bradley and Luckey were the parties to the scheme? A. Yes, air. Q And the only parties? A. The only parties; I don’t consider bis counsel as parties. Q Did you never sve any other person in the Presid- cut’s house, with reference to this matter, save General Babcock and Mr Luckey? A. I don’t think I | spoke to General Babcock about it m the President's wansion; I generally met him at his residence, or at his rooms on Penusylvania avenue; | weut there bing about the publication of the Attorne ‘at’s instructions to the District Attorneys “A, Nothing, whatever; | had nothing to do with the Attorney General’s office after about the first of the your. Q@ You never saw the written instructions that the Attorney General had prepared for you, when you were to go to St. Louis? A. I did not; 1 know nothing | about them, only what he stated to me, that he had prepared them ; that was at his residence on Vermont avenue; I met him there oace or twice: Q How did you happen to be at St. Louls when Mr. Luckey came out there? A. I lived there temporarily. Q Did you go to see Mr. Luckey, or did he come to gee you’ A. L went to seo Avery, and Luckey was there; 1 knew him previously. Q How did these negotuiions commence between you and Luckey? A On account of my negotiations and interviews with Avery; Avery had been a good friend of mine in the department, and at that time [ believed him vo be innocent, aud! always believed so ‘until be made a statement to me at the Linde!) Hotel just before he was convicted, PROMISRS OP PAY. Q. Was there any bargu between you and Luckey as to what you were to reccive in case you got that evidence: “A. No, sir; I nude no bargain with bim whatever, Q Did he ever make you any promise as to what | they would pay? A. He did not. Betore he left St. Louis he said that of course I would be very liberally paid; I told him | did not care for that. Q ‘Did Babcock make you any promise in regard to | WY A. Not there; he did here; he said 1 would be lib- | erally paid if I got the evidence off; it was not s0 } much that I was working in bis interest as that 1 re. | garded the whole matier as a political move at that | time, and I desired to serve my old commander if I could; [ have very little acquaintance with General Babcock, and I had no spectal interest or sympathy with him, Q. Do you think that if General Babcock had been | @n innocent man he would have wanted you to take those papers and destroy them? A. Well, | have re- | lected on that matter a great deal; he stated to mo that his letters were capabie of a double coustraction and I thought that a mau in familiar corresponde: kuew that a very imnocent expression in conversation iy sometimes misconstrued to mean somvthing very different trom what is intended, but there seemed to be @ great deal of this—too many of these misconstruc- ions. . Did ever tell you any particular thing that he wanted you to get? A. After I spoke to him about the despatches sixned “Bullfinch” or “B, Finch’? ho said he did not think he had ever sent anything with ‘vhat uature to that quarter, but he wanted all there was, everything, Q You were to take these bodily from the District Attorney's oflice? A. That was the understanding. Q@ And they were to be destroyed? A. Yos, but I never agreed to it. BOSH SHRPHRRD!S BROTAER-IN-LAW, Mr. Blackburn—Do you know who Bradiey is? A. I believe he isa brother-in-law of Mr, A. R. Shepherd here; he was sent out thore just to be on the watch, as he ‘py ieee to me; he was acting as one of the counsel, 1 suppose, Q. Have you detailed fully the interviews that oc- curred between you and Luckey in St, Louis relative to your employment for the purpose wnich you have indicated? A. I think I have; he stated to me that General Babcock was innocent; that it was simply « bpd at the “old map,” and | {clt so myself at the me @Q. Whom did he mean by the ‘“‘old man,” and whom did you mean? A. The President, Q@ Mr. Luckey said that General Babcock was inno- cent, and yet they wanted your services to get certain papers out of the District Attorney's ofce? A, That ia what Bradley proposed. Luckey told me to consult with him. He told me to get out all the evidence there was, Q Did Luckey tell you the same thing? A. Not at that time. Q Did he not at some time tell you that they wanted to make a with certain proofs? A. I don’t think 4t camo up exactly in that shape, but it was intimated, Q Did Luckey tell you in thy conversations any thing about Secretary Bristow or his connection witn the prosecution? A. There was a great deal of con- Vergation in that regard; I suppose that the bulk of the conversation tended that way at that time; Mr. Bristow’s agency was more intimated in the oulk of the conversation thun expressed; it was putin this way:—‘This ws simply a biow at the old man, the President.” Q. A blow from whom? A. That was understood— | from Bristow, because Bristow's friends are very zealous there, 4 ISTOW MOVEMENT. Q@ The question between Mr. Luckey and yourself was —— A. (mterrvpting)1 understood it as a Bristow mmovement in the start. @ That Bristow was cuting. tho Preaidont through General Babcock? A. That the whule matter ‘was in the interest of General Bristow, Q Did you learn irom conversation with Babcock vhat awe his view of the matter?, A. Ob, most assuredly. Q Did he tell you that? A. Yes, sir; that was talked over several times, Q Then 1 is true that all the friends of General Bavcock that yoo were in consultation with advanced that view—that it was a war waged by Secretary Bris- | tow through General Babcock on General Graut? A. | That was it, and that was the reason I went into it at the start. Q@ Do you know who sent Mr. Bradley there? A. | He told me that General Babcock sent him, @ Did Mr. Shepberd have anything to do with it? A. I nover béard bis name mentioned in ths case. Q Did you ever have any conversation with the President about this matter other than what you have detailed? A. I bad three or four interviews with the | President; up to the time] had my last interview I | Was tirmly of the behet that Babcock was inhocent. Q In any of the interviews that you had with the President did you ever loarn from hin a» you did trom Babcock and Luckey that he held the sume views of ! this prosecution that they did? A. The Pr very reticent; he said very little; ho only went on that wf Babcock was innocent he did_ not wish to see him | persecuted; he seemed to make a personal matter in | regard to General Babcock, but did not seem to have any bias whatever in regard to himseif. Q. Was there over anythin; tween you and the President to show that he shared the same opinion that those otner gentlemen ex- bag 7 vo you in reference to Mr. Bristow ¥ A. No, sir. PRESUMPTION OF BABCOCK’s GUILT. Mx. Kowsixs—The remark of General Babcock that he did not think be bad ‘tamy telegrams signed *Bultinch” to that quarter lead you to inter that he had sent such telegrams to some quarter ¢ A. Yes, most assuredly 1t was understood. ~@ There was a systematical contrivance on the partof the indicted man to suppress the testimony Against him ? A. Yes, sir, Q. Did he suppress @ portion of it? A Yes, as I understood; I don’t know of my own knoweledge. Q You supposed, irom the kuowlodged you derived from him and his friends as to the tracks he wished covered and the evidence he wished suppressed, that he Was unquestionably guilty if all the facts were known? A. That is the way I understood it; I dou’t think he had any delicacy in regara to my thinking 80; there seemed to be a dual teeling in the matter; the President had one line of tecling and they another. @ You do not think the President had anything to do _ this attempt to cover up the tracks? A. Not at al stated that he bad communicated to Coionel Dyer, pending tho Babcock trial, everything now given to the committeo, and that ho understood that he was to witness, whose name wus not mentioned, had been emacs for Babcock, but as they were not called, neither was ho. state that you engaged to act as @ spy on Colonel Dyer? A. It did. WHAT MR. CHANDLER KNAW. Q@—Do you not think that Secretary Chandler did exactly right in dismissing you then?’ A. you Mr. Chandler knew exactly whi he asked me what I went to New York ior; suid I,‘ went there on matters connected with General Bab- he, “did General Babcock know you went bs did, because | wrote him a letier ig all the conversation we had; [ that ho knew the dotails of my St. Louis employinent, because | asked him if it was necessary for ie to go into details, and he said, ‘‘no.”’ “DISCOURAGING” LETTERS. Wasttnotoy, March 31, 1876, Mr. Lork, of New York, from the Committee on the “Judiciary, to-day submitted a report on the resolution referred to that committee in relation to the letter sent by the Attorney General to the United States attorneys at St. Louis, Chicago and Milwaukee, That part of the setter to which such resolution more particularly re- ferred was as follows :— “I write this by way of abundant caution, for I am determined, so far as lies in my power, to have these prosecutions so conducted as that when they are over the honest judgment of the honest mon of the coun- try—which is sure in the main to be just—will say that none have been prosecutéd from malice and that no THE Ro gulity one, who has been proved guilty or confessed himself guilty, has been suffered to escape punish- ment"? The Committoe then say:—‘'As an accomplice, trom tho necessity of the case confessed himself guilty, he, | might write letters that could be misconstrued; | | that transpered be- | On cross-examination by Mr. Danford, the witnoss | have been called in rebuttal if Luckey and some other | By Mr. Danford—Does that articlo in the Henau | PC! asked me a plain question, and I will tell you that | I was empioyed me | of course, under such determination, could not escape ‘The first accident on the track owned by the he had or should furnish evi- | Railroad Company on North Fifth street, Wi $$ $$$ who, confessjng their own guilt, had or should give evidence against their associates in crime, It was wit this view that the Attorney General was ‘requested te inform the House by what authority and for what par pose he recently gave instructions to his subordinates, alleged to be in contravention of the long established rule relating to the testimony of accomplices in erim- inal actions,’ To this request the Attorney General, among other things, replied, ‘No instructions have boen given by the Attorney General to his subordi- nates in contravention of any rule relating | to u teetimo of accomplices in crim inal actions, and no imstructions that had any such purpose or intent, nor instructions to which any such purpose could be fairly attributed.’ In or- der that the position of the Attorney General might be ‘tully, fairly and truthfully before the commitiee’ he has consented that the person to whom it was ad- | dressed might lay before the committee parts of a let | ter written by the Attorney General relating to his let- ter to his subordinates as follows:— “The letter was occasioned through numerous Tepresentations pressed upon the Presidout aud the Attorney General by private lette by newspaper slips, by personal assertions and by the statements of one of the oldest supervisors of the | Internal Revenuo, that bargains were going to be made | with criminals, not from any need of their testimony, | Dut in a manner likely to bring great scandal upon the administration of justice. Asa precaution such possible wrong the letter was writ not fatien upon excited times it would not have received any other interpretation. Before the Navy triuls now pending are over I apprehend that it will appear that the caution was pone too soon or too earnestly ex: pressed. In the administration of criminal justice when the great power of the United States is brought to bear, aud when human liberty and good repute (more dear to honorable men than life) | ure at stake, it requires caution, circumspection and a | steady judgment to see that wrongs are not done which cannot be repaired, and that criminals shall uot euccesstully combine to shield themselves by charging | their own cries upen innocent men, These state- | ments are also contained in the letter of the Attorney | General to the sub.gummittee, which 18 also herewith submitied.”” In tho light of these statements there can be no dispute about the tact, The Attorney General, | to provent bargains with criminals likely, as he says, to bring great scandal on tho administration of justice, aud, asa precaution against any such possible ‘wrong, wrote the lotters, and asserts that cautious circums| | ton and Judgment were required to see that crimi | should not successfully combine to slneld themsel | by charging their own crimes upon innocent men, | ‘Theretore, it became necessary to noufy his suvordi- | hates of his determination that the prosecutions should be so conducted that when they were over it should appear that ‘*no guilty one who had been proved guiity or confessed himgelf guilty had been suffered to escape punishment.” The Attorney General sends to this committee a copy of the letter of October 12, trom the Secrotury of the Treasury to Blutord Wilson, Solicitor of the ‘Treasury, then at St, Louis, in which, after stating that it wag not easy at this distance to say what, if anything, should be conceded by the government in particulur cases in order to reap greater bevetits in others, und that the District Attorney and his associates on the ground are better qualitied to decide un such ques- the Secretary makes certain suggestions y with the principles of law herein- | alter stated, and in which letter it appears the At- torney General concurred, It is not explained why the Attorney General wrote'the jeter of the 26th of Janu- ary without the concurrence of the Secretary of tho ‘Treasury, Who bas by law the supervision of prosecu. tions 12 revenue cases. The question, theretore, ari whether the Attorney General, in so instructing his subordinates, acted in contravention of the long estab- lished rule relating to the tostimony of accomplices 1m criminal actions. The testimony of accomplices hus been used against their associates from the early ages of our jurisprudence, The evidence of accom. pices has at all timas been admitied, either | from a principle of public policy or trom ju. | dicial necessity, or from both, The general rule is that a person who confesses him- | Selt guilty 18.4 competent witness against his partners | in guilt." (Barbour's Criminal Law, 424). Archibald, ia | bis Criminal Pleadings and Evidence, page 154, | wtates;—**An accompiico may give evidence against those jointly guilty with him; but ulthough tm point of law they may be found guilty on his testimony | alone, yet in practice ‘t is not usual to convict on the | testimony of an accomplice, unless confirmed in some material part by the testimony of other credible wit- nesses’? The necessity of such a rule is apparent, But for conspiracies to comiit crime very tew of os gigantic crimes which startle extensive communities could be committed, und comparatively but litte crime would be committed, In the cases to which the letter of the Attorney Gen- | eral relates, conspiracies are exsential to their exist. ence. ‘When each conspirator knows that any one of the necessary accomplices may gain immunity by re- | vealing the vouspiracy it leads him to hesit: ry | aller the conspirators have committed the ci | Which they combine, it is | ble, until one or more o} | munty given a wit = 4 £ 3 = E ry dilficult, If not unposst- their number seeks the in- for the State to bring the con- | spirators to justice. Preventing uccomplices trom testitying in regard to the conspiracies im question may deprive the treasury of millions | More than has been lost by transactions such as that which has recently startled th ion, “Av extensive greement among atrocious criminals is prevented by he rule.” * © “It makes them perpetually suspicious of cach other and prevents the hopeless- ness of mercy from rendering them desperate.’ (Archi- bald, ne 154) .But the Attorney General ai swors that he intended only to_ preve criminals trom combining “to shield themselves 7, charging their crimes upon innoceat men.’ low does he know, particularly at this distant point, who | are innocent men? Does he judge from their apparent | Tespectability or high official position? Of the classes ; Of apy ntly respectable citizens and high official | many have confessed their guilt and others have bee | proven guilty. Did not the high officials and appar- ently respectable citizens at first vigorously protest | their innocence? Why did not the Attorney General, as did the Secretary of the Treasury, allow some | discretion to his subordinates? bags did ne say | that no guilty man who confesses himself guilty shalt bo allowed to escape punishment,’ | when by the necessary force of the language ac- | complices are included’ It will not bo claimed thata parson, ean testily as an accomplice Without confessing is own guilt. But the law tarnishes a periect answer | to the position of the Attorney Geveral. Au accom- plice i entitled to no unmunity, because be charges others as co-conspirators, All promises of favor oF pardon are conditional upon hia telling the truth. A false accusation would only aggravate his punishment. The Attorney General is uot willing that tne truth of the accusation shall bo settled by a jury to the satis faction of the Court, and then the ancient rule of law should be applied in favor of an accomplice who tells the truth; bat he instructs his subordinates that ne | guilty man, so confessing a mr] must escape pun- | ishment The law is laid down in Archbold, page 1 Accomplices are admitted to give evidence un- | der an implied promise of pardon on condition of their | making @ tull and fair confession of the whole trath— | that is, of all (he offences about which they might be | questioned, and of all their associates In guilt, | This implied promise arises irom the con | sideration that the witness, who is not bound to criminate himself, dows so to discover teater offenders, and upon the performance of the | condition to the satistaction of the Court he acquires an equitable titie to & pardon.’’ See also Peop.e vs, | Whipp pon # motion being made by the public prosecutor for the admission of an accomplice to tes | tify, the Court, ander the circumstances of the case, | will admit or disallow the evidence, as will most effect- ai mee the purpose of justice,” (Barboar’s Crim, Law, 424.) | In Archbola, 182, 5, it is stated:—“lt may be safe | and advisable ‘for the Judgo to inform bim that if he convucts himself fairly in every res} and discloses | the whold truth concerning the guilt of himself and his associates his punishinent may be mitigated, and that rhaps he may obtain « pardon. * * * That hie contession, testimony and disclosure must not only be perfectly voluntary, but that it must be found strictly | true. The prerogative of jon is in oral A matter of pure discretion, but there are certain cases which | come with so strong a claim tor indulgence that they are seldom if ever resisted of this nature is the implied engagement of immunity to accomplices who ry | their associates to justice.’ But under the rule la! | down by the Attorney General, the legal adviser of the President, based upon ailegations made to the Presi dent and himself, these rules are of no avail, The sub ordinates of the Attorney Ge.eral would be guilty of a perfidy unknown to an honorable profes sion should they permit accomplices to testify without informing them that they could ex; bo favor, although both the Court and jury should be convinced that they told the truth. All experience has shows that without such expectation accomplices will not teetify, and existing conspiracies to commit crime may not only go on w! immunity, but new conspiracies may be organized with comparative safety. It ie Cw | that the letter of the Attorney General bad the ¢! | of suppressing testimony in & recent important case. That the defendant in tbat case understood it would i TIvat auch sofendant distrustiog, per ene! t dist per: had surreptitiously made lowing resolution: — Rewlved, That in the. of tla House he long eratleP Serlons te meceweary, to. peevent combinations foe Gtuninal purposeg and greatly aide fn the dlsclovnre of cons Spiracles to comme ette, aad. that the nding in Pi curr nh, D. Tes, stasing the ia the soeneal that no = guilty one has been let off through favoritism, and that | guilty should escape contravention ond Fale, and that the Attorney revoke the instructions covered termination, nouncement of such de! DUMMY ACCIDENT.