"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]
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?"