"Chicago, _Dec. 4th, 1876_.
"HON. Z. CHANDLER,
"_Chairmn. Repn. Com., Washington_.
"The Illinois electors here have agreed they will vote an open
ballot. If any elector refuses so to vote, or refuses to throw a
ballot for Hayes and Wheeler as he votes, they will immediately
declare a vacancy in the district thus represented by such judge
and elect another in his place; they claim that such action is not
only perfectly justifiable, but that it cannot be reviewed by any
tribunal, as the action of the electors is final. If this meets with
your approbation I suggest you to telegraph this programme to every
Republican State.
"O. C. BABCOCK."
* * * * *
The subscriber of the last preceding letter during the Civil War was
on the staff of General Grant, and when the latter became President
acted as his private secretary. He was indicted in 1876 by the
Grand Jury of St. Louis for frauds upon the revenue and for the
"safe-burglary conspiracy" referred to in the following testimony of
one of the witnesses in the trial, Col. H. C. Whitley, who was one
of the parties charged, but desired, before doing so, to place on
the record a conditional pardon granted him.
"'Harrington took a letter from his pocket and asked me if the
signature was that of A. B. Cornell, and I said it was not. He
said that some of Pinkerton's detectives were here, and I should
send some of my men to work in with the memorialists and find
out what they were doing. I sent men out. Harrington gave me
some names on a paper whom he wished to be worked in with. I
don't remember the names. I told Harrington that I would send
men over, naming Mr. Nettleship. I went to New York on the same
night (15th) and sent Mr. Nettleship over, giving him the names,
and telling him that they were the parties to be worked. I don't
remember that I gave Nettleship any instructions to report to
Harrington at this particular time. I was again in this city
on the 29th of March, having previously sent over a man named
Oberworth with Nettleship. I found on my arrival that Oberworth
had been arrested for peddling cigars without a license, and I
told Harrington that he (Oberworth) was one of my men, and he
was released. Mr. Harrington complained that the men were good
for nothing, and he wanted men who would push matters along and
work to some purpose. Harrington said something must be done;
that he had a plan which would throw dirt and ridicule on the
memorialists. He said they thought that Evan's books were in his
office, and they were trying to get them, and he thought that
to have his office robbed was the best plan; he said he did not
care if his safe was knocked or blown to hell, as the damned
safe belonged to him. I said I did not wish the men to get into
trouble, and Harrington replied that there was no danger, as he
was district attorney, and they should not be hurt. I came from
New York on the 29th, and returned the same night. I came again
on the 8th of April, and saw Gen. Babcock at his office. I asked
how matters were about the investigation, and he said all right,
that Harrington kept him posted up.
"'I was again in Washington on the 27th, arriving in the
afternoon, four days after the safe was blown up. I went up to
Harrington's house, and he told me about what had transpired
during the blowing of the safe. He said that everything would
have worked all right except for the interference of Major
Richard, the superintendent of police, who would not co-operate
with him. After that I called upon Gen. Babcock at his office in
the White House. He spoke about the safe burglary, saying that
it was very badly managed; that he thought I was smarter than to
allow things to go on as they did. The next time I saw Babcock
was in New York, in the May following. I went up to the Fifth
Avenue Hotel in that city. After talking to him a while I said
that I expected that there would be some more trouble about the
case. Babcock said: "No; stand by your guns; I'll protect your
rear." I spoke to him about Bluford Wilson, then the Solicitor
of the Treasury, investigating my office in New York for the
purpose of ascertaining whether any of the secret-service men
were connected with the safe burglary, and then told him I would
do it, that is, stand by my guns if he protected the rear.
"'Soon afterward I had an interview with Harrington at the
Metropolitan Hotel, New York. I complained to him that the
whole matter of the safe burglary seemed to be falling upon
the secret service, and that we would likely get into trouble
about it. Harrington said: "No; I am the real district attorney
at Washington, and I will protect all of you." I told him that
Somerville wanted some money, and Harrington gave me $500 for
him. I paid it all to Somerville as part of his fee. Harrington
did not say what particular service Somerville rendered. During
the same month I had an interview with Babcock here. I called
to see him at his house. Harrington then lived a few doors from
him on the same row. I told Babcock I wanted to see Harrington,
and Babcock sent after him. Harrington came in by the alley gate
to Babcock's yard. I told Harrington that Somerville wanted
more money, but do not remember that Babcock heard me speak to
Harrington, or that he knew the money was to go to Somerville.
All I remember is that Harrington brought me the money, and
that I gave it to Somerville, who said he wanted to use it to
get Benton, the burglar who was arrested on the night of the
burglary, out.'
"In speaking of other interviews with Babcock, Whitley testified
as follows:
"'In the autumn of 1875 I called at Babcock's cottage at Long
Branch and had a talk with him. I told him that Albert Cunz
and Delome, two former secret-service men, had been thrown out
of employment in consequence of the safe burglary and their
connection with it. Babcock said he would try and get them in
the New York Custom-House. I told him that I would like for
myself a commission to go somewhere, and Babcock said he would
see the Secretary of the Treasury, and have me sent to Europe
with some bonds. I told him I did not want to go to Europe, but
wanted to go to Colorado. Babcock said: "If any trouble comes up
you can 'slide off,'" or words to that effect. I told him I had
had trouble enough in connection with the case, and did not want
any more.
"'I had a conversation with Harrington after we were indicted
in the fall of 1874 in the Metropolitan Hotel. I told him I
did not like the idea of being indicted in the matter. He
told me it would be all right, that he would pay counsel for
me. He directed me to write and employ Gen. S. S. Henkin, of
Washington, as my attorney, which I did. That case resulted
in a hung jury. This spring, previous to going before Proctor
Knott's committee, I called at the White House to see Gen.
Babcock, and requested him to do all he could to have Mr. Rice,
who was with me, appointed postmaster at Pueblo, Colorado. He
said he would assist all he could. As I was leaving the room, I
remarked to him: "Things look like we will have more trouble."
He answered: "Yes, things do look squally; but it will all blow
over again."'"[17]
[17] New York _Sun_, September 21, 1876.
Babcock was acquitted, with the aid of a deposition by General
Grant, and only a few weeks before this trial was promoted to a
colonelcy.
Only four months before the indictment and trial of Babcock,
Secretary Belknap, a member of President Grant's Cabinet, was
impeached and put on trial before the Senate at Washington. During
the trial the late George F. Hoar, one of the Republican Senators
from Massachusetts, addressed the Senate, and closed his discourse
with the following fearful arraignment of the administration
during the Presidency of Grant, and gave a transparent exposure
of the reasons why the satellites of the President were determined
to shrink from no crime necessary to prevent the inauguration at
Washington of a President who had become famous by the havoc he had
already made of the Tweed Ring plunderers in New York and the Canal
Ring plunderers at Albany, and whose advent to Washington would put
to flight the horde of miscreants who then infested both ends of the
capitol:
"My own public life has been a very brief and insignificant
one, extending little beyond the duration of a single term of
Senatorial office, but in that brief period I have seen five
judges of a high court of the United States driven from office
by threats of impeachment for corruption or maladministration.
I have heard the taunt from friendliest lips, that when the
United States presented herself in the East to take part with
the civilized world in generous competition in the arts of life,
the only product of her institutions in which she surpassed all
others beyond question was her corruption. I have seen in the
State in the Union foremost in power and wealth four judges
of her courts impeached for corruption, and the political
administration of her chief city become a disgrace and a by-word
throughout the world. I have seen the chairman of the Committee
on Military Affairs in the House, now a distinguished member of
this court, rise in his place and demand the expulsion of four
of his associates for making sale of their official privilege
of selecting the youths to be educated at our great military
school. When the greatest railroad of the world, binding
together the continent and uniting the two great seas which
wash our shores, was finished, I have seen our national triumph
and exaltation turned to bitterness and shame by the unanimous
reports of three committees of Congress, two of the House, and
one here, that every step of that mighty enterprise had been
taken in fraud. I have heard in highest places the shameless
doctrine avowed by men grown old in public office that the
true way by which power should be gained in the republic is to
bribe the people with the offices created for their service,
and the true end for which it should be used when gained is
the promotion of selfish ambition and the gratification of
personal revenge. I have heard that suspicion haunts the
footsteps of the trusted companions of the President. These
things have passed into history. The Hallam, or the Tacitus,
or the Sismondi, or the Macaulay who writes the annals of our
time will record them with his inexorable pen; and now, when
a high Cabinet officer, the constitutional adviser of the
Executive, flees from office before charges of corruption, shall
the historian add that the Senate treated the demand of the
people for its judgment of condemnation as a farce, and laid
down its high functions before the sophistries and jeers of the
criminal lawyer? Shall he speculate about the petty political
calculations as to the effect of one party or the other which
induced his judges to connive at the escape of the great public
criminal; or, on the other hand, shall he close the chapter by
narrating how these things were detected, reformed, and punished
by constitutional processes which the wisdom of our fathers
devised for us, and the virtue and purity of the people found
their vindication in the justice of the Senate?"