[429]
belonged to the state department, but the President kept it in his own hands.
Mr. Fish, who is supposed not to have been in sympathy with it, took at first only a perfunctory part.
The original orders went no further than to justify inquiry; but as more was done, and what was done was ratified, it is evident that the President himself in conversation supplemented the written directions with further authority.
The person on whom he put the responsible business, involving wide discretion and dangerous powers, was his secretary, Orville E. Babcock; and a more unfit agent could not have been selected.1 He not only was not in the diplomatic service, but his character disqualified him for a delicate and responsible trust.
On May 17, 1869, Mr. Fish communicated to Robeson, Secretary of the Navy, the President's desire to have a man-of-war ‘ordered to visit the several ports of the Dominican republic, and to report upon the condition of affairs in that quarter,’ with the addition: ‘It is also important that we should have full and accurate information in regard to the views of the Dominican people of all parties in regard to annexation to the country, or the sale or lease of the Bay of Samana, or of territory adjacent thereto.’
The President despatched Babcock in July, under instructions dated the 13th, and signed by Mr. Fish, which so far as printed limited his errand to one of full inquiry into the population and
1 Babcock was tried in the United States court at St. Louis in February, 1876. on an indictment for conspiring to defraud the government in the collection of revenue on distilled spirits. His acquittal was attributed by some to defects in the chain of evidence which was strongly inculpatory, and by others to the moral support which he received from President Grant, who declared in a deposition entire confidence in his character. The prosecutions were embarrassed by the President's summary dismissal of John B. Henderson, former senator from Missouri, who was serving the government as special counsel,— the cause of the dismissal being certain language of General Henderson, used by him in court, which the President deemed disrespectful to himself, though an offensive purpose was disavowed by the counsel. General Henderson has continued to hold a high place in his party, serving as president of the Republican national convention in 1884, and of the Pan-American Congress.
An unfavorable view of Babcock is given by H. V. Boynton in the North American Review, October, 1876 (pp. 283-327), and by Whitelaw Reid in the New York Tribune, Feb. 17 and 23, 1876. (Compare the numbers of this journal for February 13. 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 2.5, and 28.) These writers reflect on the President's support of Babcock, and his want of sympathy with the prosecution,—the ‘Tribune’ saying, ‘He is better fitted to rule an Asiatic kingdom than a free American people.’ Babcock was again indicted, April 16, 1876, in the District of Columbia, and this time on the charge of complicity with certain safe burglaries (New York Tribune, April 17, 1876); but this case did not come to a trial. His transactions were the subject of investigation by committees of Congress,—Forty-third Congress, first session, No. 785, concerning safe burglaries; Forty-fourth Congress, first session, No. 799, concerning sale of post-traderships.
Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.