1 this ridiculous gush which threatens to wash away half the hallmarks of the war.' Charles Emory Smith sent assurances that 'Republicans are stirred and enkindled.' 2 Others were not so sure. But the momentary reaction among Republicans was maddening to Morton, also a candidate, who thought Blaine had invaded his own special territory, and, seizing on the Mississippi election, he rushed to the center aisle, crippled though he was, with the bloody shirt and waved it more aggressively if not so artistically. He made no such virile and handsome figure as Blaine when he grasped the banner. Standing with difficulty, leaning on his crutch, he read his speech, replete with bitter phrases, and there was just a touch of pathos in the picture. Disease was making inroads, and he seemed but a feeble echo of his former self. A correspondent thought it a mistake to attempt the speech standing, since 'there was more grace in his action swaying from side to side in a movable chair.' But the presidential convention was not remote and he stood to create a false impression of physical fitness.3 The spirit within 'his enfeebled body seemed like a caged lion and visible always through the bars.' He knew the futility of his effort the House was Democratic. But Mississippi was a staff on which the bloody shirt could flutter in the campaign. A few evenings later, the Pinchback clan gathered in Morton's rooms and plans were made to reopen the fight for the admission of the Kellogg 'Senator.' It would furnish a pretext for reviving the war hates again; and so a few days later, Morton again held forth on Louisiana with tales of bloody outrages on 'loyal men.' But, alas, Pinchback had become a bore even to the patient correspondents, and that of the 'New York Tribune' was offering a marching air: 'Pinch, brothers, pinch with care, Pinch in the presence of the Senataire.' III But all the gasconading of Blaine and Morton could not distract attention from a scandal that was shaking the Nation. The induction of Benjamin H. Bristow into the office of Secretary of 1 Gail Hamilton, 381. 2 Ibid., 381. New York World, January 24, 1876. Ibid., January 25, 1876. the Treasury had been an evil hour for the corruptionists. For years the press had been charging corruption in the whiskey tax. A ring had been formed with General John McDonald, supervisor of internal revenue at St. Louis, as the leader, composed of internal revenue officers and distillers, with accomplices in Washington and the Treasury. These conspirators had been reaping a golden harvest through the abatement of the whiskey tax. Bristow found a startling discrepancy between the amount of liquor consumed and shipped and that on which taxes were paid. McDonald, notoriously unfit, had been appointed to his post over the earnest protests of the two Republican Senators and all the Republican Congressmen from Missouri. The fight against him found him serenity itself. "They need not trouble themselves,' he said. 'I know General Grant better than any of them, and I shall be appointed.' And he was right. In the early stages of the conspiracy, it was represented as a plan for raising campaign funds, and this seems to have been thought legitimate. This pretense was maintained through the life of the conspiracy, money from the Whiskey Ring flowing freely into the campaign chest of 1872,2 with as much as thirty thousand dollars being sent to Indiana, on the solicitation of Morton.3 1 Even so, the conspirators were primarily interested in feathering their own nests. Boasting of their power in Washington, and flaunting their money, they lived brazenly, far beyond the means of an official salary in a petty position. Certain it is that complaints sent to the Secretary and even to the President brought no results; and when an ‘investigation' was occasionally ordered, an agent susceptible to a bribe was given the mission.5 Warning was also sent ahead by Avery, the chief clerk of the Treasury, who was on a regular salary from the thieves." All went smoothly until January, 1874, when the unannounced appearance of a Treasury agent in St. Louis caused so much uneasiness that McDonald sent one of his associates to Washington, where he was assured that nothing prejudicial would be reported. That autumn, Grant, accompanied by Babcock, 1 Statement of William Grosvenor, editor of the Missouri Democrat, McDonald, 39. 2 Ibid., 42. 3 Ibid., 51. • Ibid., statement of Grosvenor, 45. 5 Ibid., 44. • Ibid. visited the St. Louis Fair as McDonald's guest, stayed at the Lindell Hotel at his expense, and accepted a valuable team of horses. The ringsters provided the horses with a complete outfit-harness, blankets, a buggy whip costing twenty-five dollars, and gold breastplates with Grant's name engraved - and, chartering a special car, sent them on to Washington. Soon the President was driving his team about the city and its environs. The appearance of the presidential party with McDonald in the presence of twenty-five thousand people caused some little stir. That December, McDonald went to Washington personally to present Babcock with five thousand dollars as part of the swag, according to his story, and certain it is that the Whiskey Ring did give the President's private secretary a twenty-four-hundred-dollar diamond shirt stud, and, on Babcock's complaint that it had a flaw, another and a more expensive one was given.* 3 In April, 1875, the clouds began to darken. Another Treasury agent mysteriously had appeared in St. Louis. There had been no warning. McDonald hurried to Washington, to find both Grant and Babcock out of town, and saw Bristow, who asked embarrassing questions. Going to Commissioner Douglass, the consternation grew with the discovery that Douglass knew nothing of an agent being sent. He was perceptibly embarrassed even more so was McDonald. It was a good time to retire, and McDonald and some of his associates resigned. A month later, Bristow seized distilleries, found abundant evidence, and McDonald and others were indicted; more indictments followed later. Babcock, lingering with Grant at Long Branch and in deadly fear of an informer, was assiduously cultivating the head of the ring. Meanwhile, former Senator John B. Henderson, special prosecutor in the whiskey cases, was delving deep, learning much, and exhibiting a distressing indifference to results. Whispers were heard that much had been found involving Babcock; that Henderson would demand an indictment. More that with the rumors of evidence implicating Babcock, the Attorney-General had advised the District Attorney to submit the evidence to him be1 Rhodes, vII, 184; McDonald, 99. McDonald, 110. 2 Ibid., statement of Grosvenor, 45, Rhodes, vII, 184, fore determining his course and that Bristow had objected.1 The President's ringing declaration, 'Let no guilty man escape,' no longer impressed press or public. Then came the first sensation. In the trial of the chief clerk of the Treasury, Henderson, prosecuting relentlessly, and thundering his closing argument to the jury, pointed unmistakably to the implication of Babcock. 'What right had Babcock to go to Douglas to induce him to withdraw his agents?... What right had the President to interfere with Commissioner Douglas... or with the Secretary of the Treasury? None- and Douglas showed a lamentable weakness of character when he listened to Babcock's dictates.' The news flashed over the wires to Washington and instantly came the dismissal of Henderson. With characteristic courage he had stood by his speech and had no apology to make. This dismissal, at the moment it was understood Henderson was pressing for an indictment of Babcock, created an ugly impression. Press correspondents informed their readers that the real cause of the dismissal was the necessity of saving the President's secretary.2 Among the conspirators there was jubilation — the removal of the leader meant the demoralization of the prosecution. It was openly charged that Grant had tried to prevent the indictment of Babcock by destroying the force of the prosecution. Meanwhile, behind the bars, McDonald in an interview was paying tribute to Babcock as 'one of the nicest little gentlemen you ever saw' who 'was a particular friend of mine.' 5 IV 3 With an indictment inevitable, Babcock, involved in his civil capacity, demanded a military court of inquiry, since he was in the army. The motive was plain - he feared a civil court. Grant thought the civil process would yield to the military until his mind was disabused by the lawyers in the Cabinet. Even so, the request was granted. Again the press was puzzled. He asks a military court, as did Butterfield, said the 'New York Herald.' It added 1 New York Herald, December 16, 1875. 2 Ibid., December, 13 1875. 4 New York World, December 10, 1875. that the questions involved 'affect the integrity of the supreme office of the land.' It was said that just before the indictment was announced, a private message from Washington directed that the evidence be turned over to the court of inquiry, which would have deprived the District Attorney of the evidence before the grand jury.2 Babcock was hurrying to Chicago to the court of inquiry, when he was overtaken by the indictment, and the jig was up. Came then the maneuverings between the indictment and the trial. The lawyers for Babcock were convinced that he could not be convicted on the evidence. There was a haunting fear of an informer turning State's evidence and furnishing missing links in the chain. Less than two weeks before the trial, district attorneys engaged on the whiskey cases were astounded by instructions from the Attorney-General sharply shutting the door to immunity on any one turning State's evidence. The intent was clear to close the mouths of possible informers. The careful guarding of these instructions from publicity, until a Chicago paper found and published them, made them seem all the more sinister. The House called for an explanation, and the Attorney-General answered with a quibble. Meanwhile the press was complaining that the White House had become the headquarters of the Babcock defense.' The Washington correspondent of Whitelaw Reid's paper was saying that the President was in conferences with those who habitually referred to the prosecution as 'the conspiracy against Babcock.” Then followed the President's deposition as a character witness, in which his memory seemed bad. From a private citizen it would have been utterly worthless; but the defense surrounded it with the glamour of Grant's name, and the successor of Henderson in the prosecution created another courtroom sensation by denouncing its use. Babcock, who had clamored for a court of inquiry, restrained himself from taking the stand; the court instructed decisively for the defense, and Babcock was declared not guilty. Serenaded by a Government band and given a purse of ten thou 1 December 4, 1875. 2 New York Herald, December 10, 1875. New York Tribune, February 23, 1876. Ibid., February 22, 1876. |