Newspaper of Chicago Daily Tribune, 13 Mayıs 1876, Page 5

Newspaper of Chicago Daily Tribune dated 13 Mayıs 1876 Page 5
Text content (automatically generated)

WHISKY. Commencement of the Trial of Su pervisor Munn. Hr, Ayer Opens for the Prosecu tion—What It Is Intended to Prove. jloney Paid to Munn, Irvin, and Wadsworth for Cor rupt Purposes. Mr. Hesing Interceding for ‘.he Lake Shore Dis tillery. Col. Ingersoll Begins the Opening Argument for the Defense. Suspicions Evidence and Profes sional Acrimony at Milwaukee. gri, Leavenworth’s Important Affida vit, as Filed at St. Louis. CHICAGO. PREEI3IIN ART. 188 INDICTMENT AND TDD JCBT. The Munn trial commenced yesterday morn ing It seemed at one time that there teas a decidedly fair prospect for a continuance, when Col. Immrsoll announced his readiness to pro cecd under the joint indictment, and the Gov ernment Insisted on trying the indictment against Munn individually. The matter was arranged, however, the Government making the concession, and agreeing to take up the joint indictment first But It was like drawing teeth, except that it took twice as long to get to it. The crowd was a select oue. There was little of the rag-tag clement, generally so strongly represented at criminal trials, present. But it was at the same time a comparatively small gathering, confirming the prevailing impression that the general interest in the whisky prosecu tions has been pretty much satiated. Col Munn was present before 10 o’clock with his counsel, Col. Ingersoll and Mr. S. K- Dow. Each looked cheerful and confident. The Gover nment was on hand in the persons of District- Attorney Bangs, Mr. Ben. F. Ayer, and Mr. Wirt Dexter. The first was prepared to take notes, the others to do the remaining Work. Jhey all smiled serenely. ABE YOU READY? At 10:10 Judge Blodgett, having disposed of KTeral civil motions, asked the Government representatives and ilr. Munn’s attorneys if they were ready to proceed. There was a gen eral assent, and Deputy-Marshal Campbell pro ceeded to call the panel of the jury. Some little time was spent in calling the jury and arranging the trial tables, the chief purpose an the port of the attorneys seeming to be to crowd tnc reporters and provide convenient seats for themselves. At last they had everything to init themselves, the jury was seated in the box, and Mr. Ayer addressed them on tne nature of the charge against the defendant, referring to the indictment against Muun alone. UNDER WHICH INDICTMENT? When Mr. Ayer had concluded, Col. Ingersoll laid this indictment was not the one he was pre- Sared to meet. This was the indictment agamst [unn alone. The indictment in which he was prepared was that against Munnand Bridges, ana that was the one he meant to try. Judge Bangs said he had told CoL Ingersoll some time ago that probably the Munn-Bridges Indictment would be taken up first, but that last Wednesday it was understood that the single Indictment should be taken up first. At any rate, ft was spoken of as the u Muun indictment.” CoL Ingersoll said that was too thin. He had been led to believe that the Munn-Bridges in dictment would come up first, and he hud never even read the other. Mr. Ayer said the two indictments charged shout the same offense, and precisely the same witnesses would testify to the same facts in the second cose as in the first. They were under different sections of the statute, and the only difference was that In one 31r. Mann appeared as Supervisor, and in the other in his private character. CoL Ingersoll said he was not ready on the single indictment. In the case of 31unnand Bridges, they could not use Bridges for a wit ness. He was ? party to the record, and one of the indicted. But in the case against Munn in dividually, they could use Bridges as a witness, and if they were to be tried on this single indict ment they would want Bridges’ testimony, and also that of Mr. Hoyt. It the Government elected to proceed in this single indictment, Col. Ingersoll said he wanted a few moments to ap ply for a continuance, and he believed be could satisfy the Court that he should have it. Air. Ayer said it was the first time he had heard oi any misunderstanding between coun sel. It was true that Bridges would be a competent witness on the trial of the single indictment, and Hoyt might also be a competent witness. Whether tne defendants had taken any steps to procure the testimony of either of these witnesses, or that there was any probability that they could be prevailed upon to return to the dty, he was not informed. But he thought the absence of Hoyt was no more reason for the continuance of this case than it would be for the continuance of the other. The Court—lf It is made to appear that Bridges is a material witness, whom it‘ls in tended to produce on the trial of the single case, and if the defendant was given, to under stand that the first case tried should be No. 227, where Bridges is jointly indicted with Alunn, of course the defendant should have some preparation, and the Court might consider there was cause for either continuing the case, or requiring the prosecution to pro ceed with the first case on.thc calendar. I sup pose we may as well have no conundrums or riddles about this thing. If there had been no evidence of an understanding, or statement by the counsel as to which one of these cases should be tried first, I would sav the Govern ment had a right to call either of tfieni. 1 think Jou had better proceed with the first case. If they both involve the same facts; if the only difference is that one charges the violation of the law while the defendant was an officer and the other while in his individual capacity,—'while the first charge is, of course, rather more grave, •“■it will be for the prosecution to say whether they will try the first case first. It may Involve two trials. CoL Ingersoll—l would rather have the case lam here for disposed of in some way, and I [Riders land that Mr. Ayer, from his remarks, holds that case up before us in terrorem, and jays they are ready to try both. I have no ob jection to their entering a noL pros, in the first if they want to, Mr. Ayer—All my arrangements have been in reference to the case we desired to try. Judge Blodgett—The Court assumes that the "“trict-Attorncy understands both cases. Mr. Ayer—l don’t understand the Court to decide that any ground been shown for a continuance of this case. Under those circum fances we prefer to go on with a trial of the wat indictment. ii MR. AYER addressed the jury as follows: ibis change just decided upon does not make a change in the statement ot the case neces •ary* This is a joint indictment against Munn JAd Bridges, charging them jointly with con iplnng with a large number of persons, dis a* , &n< * °tbers, in the City oi Chicago, to aeiraud the United States of The tur imposed jfpon a large quantity of spirits to be manu jactured at certain distilleries named in the in- Btctment, and the indictment then proceeds to •Rarge certain acts committed by some of the prims to the conspiracy to carry out its ob- Mr* Bridges nas not put in bis appearance, Jud, of course, he is not upon triaL We have to try Munn singly. a jury. .■ Mr « Ayer then proceeded to Interrogate the nhj* The usual line of questions was asked. «iu Mr. Ayer expressed his satisfaction with all CoL Ingersoll said that before proceeding to examine the jurors he wanted to enter a formal r tquest for the peremptory challenges. At first Judge Blodgett was disposed to think tuat the peremptory challenges on each side *®re limited to three. CoL lugersoll insisted on his right to ten. lie not want to pcrhgps get the enmity of a juror whom he could not get rid of. The other side might like It. but he didn’t. Finally Judge Blodgett, after consulting the books, told him he guessed he was right, where upon Col. Ingersoll proceeded to examine the jury. He need not have made his plea for the ten challenges, for as it turned out the en tire twelve were quite satisfactory to him and his associate, as well as to his client. The names of the jurors arc as follows: Daniel Etmegre, farmer, Oregon, Ogle Coun ty; John C. Townsend, grain-buyer, Henry, Marshall County; N. J. Churchill, Justice of the Peace, Elroy, Stephenson County; A. O, Tuttle, farmer, Tivoli, Peoria County; william V. Flub, coal merchant. Aurora, Kane County; Increase C. Cosenortu, banker, Elgin, Kane County; Nathaniel Vose, farmer, Whittier, Lake County; Fred N, woods, farmer, Down er’s Grove, Du Page County; W. R. Andrus, merchant, Amboy, Xee County; Smith Searles, dealer in fancy goods and mlumery, McHenry, McHenry County; Isaac M. Stamcih farmer, Mount Palatine, Putnam County; James S. TaggarL farmer, Ridott, Stephenson County. Mr. West Dexter stated that, in consequence of the change by which the case under the joint indictment was to be tried instead of that against Mutm singly, the Government would like a little time for a somewhat different prep aration. It was then 11:30, and he said that counsel had agreed in requesting the Court to grant a recess until 2 o’dock. oy which time they would have completed ail their necessary preparations. The Court granted the request, and, having cautioned the jury to refrain from any comment on, or discussion of, the case, a recess was taken until 2 o’dock. THE PROSECUTION. OPENING ARGUMENT BY ME. AYES. At 2 o’dock Mr. Ayer addressed the jury for the prosecution. He said that the iudietment was founded upon Sec. 54,040 of the Revised Statutes, the provisions of which had been in force since 1807. The offense charged was that of conspiracy, and there were two counts to the indictment. Counsel here read the indictment, the charges in which are well known to the readers of The Tribune. To make out the case it would be sufficient to show that ifr. Munn conspired with 1 any oue of the parties named in the indictment; it was not necessary lo show conspiracy between them all. If any overt act had been performed by the de fendant to y/ carry out the ' conspir acy, it would if be sufficient to secure a conviction./ For several years Mr. Munn had been Supervisor of the Internal Rev enue District of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michi gan. His first appointment was in IS7I, by the Secretary’ of the Treasury, under the law which existed at that time. When the law was changed in IS?3 transferring the appointment of such officers to the President by aud with the advice and consent of the Senate, the defendant was commissioned by the President to the same office, and assigned to the same district. At the time of his original appointment Mr. Munn re sided at Cairo, in this Stale, and his headquar ters were established at that city. He was, how ever, in the habit of making frequent visits and spending a large portion of his time in this city. In 1574 he removed to Chicago and established Ids principal office and headquarters here. Mr. Bridges, the other person jointly in dicted with Mr. Alunu, was an internal revenue agent appointed to assist the local officers here in the execution of the Internal Revenue law. He occupied an office with Mr. Munn, and was, In fact, that gentleman’s subordinate, whose duty it was to assist him in performing the functions of his office. Very’ large and compre hensive powers were conferred upon the Super visor. He had to exercise supervision over all the subordinate officers employed by the Gov ernment in the collection of internal revenue, and efficiency and honesty in the discharge of those duties were essentially requisite. The policy of the National Administration was to procure revenue by indirect rather thau direct taxes on real and personal property. That system had met with great favor, and one of the principal sources of revenue thus raised was, as was well known, by a tax on distilled spirits. In every civilized country a large portion of the revenue was derived from that source; it was everywhere considered one of the most legiti mate objects of taxation. It was ' a just impo sition, and, if the law was honestly administered, an effectual means of raising revenue. From this source alone the United States Government obtained between $50,000,000 and $00,000,- 000 per annum, and it, of course, dimin ished to this extent the revenue which it would be otherwise necessary to raise from other sources. For the purpose of securing the eolieciion of this money and enabling the rev enue officers more easily to detect any frauds that might be perpetrated, very stringent rules and regulations had been established for the management aud conduct of distilleries. Mr. Aver then gave a careful and complete analysis of the law governing the distillation of spirits and the duties of the revenue officers, which if not understood by the general public by tills time never will be. The methods by which dis tillers have defrauded the Government were then fully explained, together with the steps taken in May, 16<5, to ferret out the extensive frauds which had been committed iu Chicago, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. The op erations of the Grand Jury* after the first seiz ures were also gone into at length. XnlS<slt became a matter of notoriety all over the coun try that extensive frauds had been perpetrated, and tiie market was flooded with a large quanti ty of illicit spirits. In December last, after the convictions at St. Louis, the INDICTED DISTILLERS AND RECTIFIERS BECAME UNEASY, and concluded that the best thing they could do was to make a dean breast of their frauds. From their disclosures it was evident that every distillery aud rectifying-housc in the city, with the exception of one, was in the King, as well as a large corps of revenue ofliccrs and prominent local politicians. What course should be pursued was then considered by the prosecuting officers of the Government. The object of the Govern ment had been to ferret out and expose the frauds in their full length and breadth, to get at the bottom facts, and to bring the offenders to justice. The District-Attorney thought it his duty to pay some heed to this information. Accordingly in January another Grand Jury was summoned, and upon the strength of their investigations the remaining distilleries were seized, and the proprietors indicted. Mr. -uyer then gave the particulars connected with the indictment of Messrs. Hesing, Rehm, etc., and proceeded to say that the evidence would show that the frauds were practiced by nine out of ten of the distillers of Chicago constantly, persistently, and almost openlvTand that among the fifty Gaugers and Storekeepers in the city there were not above one or two who were honest and trust worthy men—the rest were ail in the Ring, and connived at the frauds. AH the rectifying houses were runuing over with the il crooked,’ and it would have been impossible for the supervision during the time the Ring was in operation to have visited one of them without detecting the frauds. There would not only be direct aud pos itive testimony that defendant was cognizant of the frauds, and was paid thousands of dollars for consenting to their perpetration, but circum stantial evidence to corroborate this evidence In the strongest and most satisfactory manner. The evidence would cover the entire period from the spring of 1873 down to May, !B<o, and would snow the INTIMATE CONNECTION OP THE HUSO WITH TUB OFFICIALS charged with tee collection of the revenue. It would appear that Jake Rohm was used consid erably to pacify the officers with money when they scowled on the frauds. Early in the year named several distillers complained to Mr. Kehra that the Blackhawk was running crooked, and requested him to use his influence to stop it. To this end he called upon Mr. Irvin, who affected not to put much faith in his representations. However, at Kelun’s request a change in the Storekeeper at the distillery was made. A short time after this, Mr. Besing called upon Kehm In behalf of Miller & Heed, of the Black hawk, represented that large quantities of il licit spirits were being manufactured elsewhere, and that it was impossible for a distillery to do an honest business long. Mr. Hcsing intimated that his clients were willing to pay sooo amonth for the privilege of not being interfered with. Rehm mentioned the proposition to the Col lector, who at once closed with it, and an un derstanding was arrived at that the Blackhawk Distillery was to carry on business in its own wav, the price of the privilege being paid over by Rehm to Mr. Irvin. Shortly after this arrangement was consummated. Jlr. Hcslng proposed a similar arrangement with regard to the Lake Shore Distillery, which was also entered into. A vigilant officer, the counsel contended, would have it in his power to break up such a com bination as existed, but there seemed no desire oifthe part of those high in office here to stop illegal business. Alter a n hiie MUNN WAS SOUXDED BY REHIT, and he entered into the King, Sir. Bridges taking the money and dividing it with him. Oneman was kept in the department who was used to coerce payment when it was suspected tee assessment of any distillery was not an honest one; and it would also be shown that Mr. Rehm had entire charge and control of the sub ordinate officers of the United States in Chicago. Whenever a distiller wished to have a Gauger or Storekeeper assigned to his ment, application was made to Kehm, who gen erally brought about the desired arrangement. THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: SATURDAY. MAY"I3, 1876—TWELVE PAGES. If a revenue agent ww*.' visit the city for the purpose of inspection, the distillers would re ceive ample notice from Mr. Rehm, to enable them to straighten np. This information "was communicated to Jake by Mr. Bridges Muim’s subordinate; and in fact when the Supervisor himself was to visit a place, the fact was always communicated beforehand to the distiller. There were, how ever, special facts connected with the defend ant. when Golsen & Eastman made a mistake in shipping some spirits to Pittsburg and the authorities at Washington called attention to the circumstance, Munn inspected the books of their establishment and found transparent evidence of fraud, aud took no ofHdal action in regard thereto. In 1875 the defendant also visited Roelle & Junker’s place, and found fifteen to twenty empty: barrels with uncanceled stamps on. A thousand dollars on this oc casion padfied Muim’s official .temper. This money wasjpaid direct to Munn, who requested Rehm not to mention the fact to Bridges. Messrs. Wadsworth and Hoyt also divided money for similar services. It was unnecessary for the defense to say that these men were equal ly guilty. That was perfectly true, aud their cases would be treated at another time. The Court had waited until this lime in order to as certain the full facts, that it might apportion punishment lo the parties according to their deserts. The question for the jury to consider at present was whether the defendant was guilty of the charges preferred against him. To a large extent the evidence would come from per sons who had been engaged in the whisky frauds. They were, however, competent wit nesses, aud the jury could determine, alter hearing their testimony, what degree of creduli ty could justly be attached to It. THE DEFENSE. COL. inqersoll’s remarks. When Mr. Ayer had concluded his address, Col. Ingersoll arose, and had gotten as far as “Gentlemen of the jury,” when Judge Blodgett asked him If he had not better postpone his statement until the morning. Col. Ingersoll said he thought he was composed enough to go on, and that he would like to do so until the time for adjournment. The Court nodded con sent, and at 4:05 Col. Ingersoll launched out. “Gentlemen of the jury,” said he, “as far aa the facts, or what pretend to be the facts, are concerned, you and I arc on the same footing. You have heard the statementmade by the attor ney for the prosecution. I never heard it before. I never knew until now wliat they intended to prove, or what they claimed they could prove in this case. The indictment you have heard read in the first count states that the defendant con spired to defraud the revenue of the United States of the tax on 1,000,000 gallons of high wines. The second count is that he combined, and confederated, and conspired with certain persons to defraud the Government of the lax on another certain number of gallons of high wines. The third count is that he conspired with sundry parties §t& remove from cer tain » distilleries certain quantities of spirits without having paid the tax. The reading of the indictment afforded no knowledge to the defendant. The reading of this indictment did not give the defendant the least idea of what the case of the People was against him, so that we were absolutely in the dark. We did not know what they were going to try to prove. We did not know* what witnesses were about to be called. We had not the slightest idea of what we were to be called upon to defend. Itiias been one of the princi pal troubles I have had in this case—imagining what would be brought against this defendant, THE DEFENDANT TOLD ME — and yon may say that is what all defendants may say to their lawyers, and that is partly true and partly false —he" told me that he was en tirely innocent. Says I, “ Have yon never dealt in anythin" i I want to know what, in all proba bility, you will be charged with. I want some initial point to start from. I want some place to begm so that I can see what this evidence means.” He said, “You know as well as Ido where to begin.” I believed that there was a conspiracy in the City of Chicago to defraud the Government of the United States. I believ ed it. I didn’t know it. These gentle men probabiv do, because the conspirators arc upon their si’de, and mix and mingle in their de liberations and councils. The conspirators and thieves are not with us. The defendant in this case has not had the advantage of the informa tion to be proved through these gentlemen who have connected with them perjured thieves and scoundrels. All these gentlemen have given their services to the United States of America. Consequently we could not get them. We could not get at a solitary thief withoutjgoing to the Government. We could not go to a solitary person that had to com mit perjury without infringing upon the ground of these gentlemen. So I said to mv client: “ You don’t want any trial. If I was indicted under the circumstances, X wouldn’t want a trial, whether I was guilty or Innocent.” Generally, gentlemen, I would say that a court of justice is a place in which innocence should feel as valor behind a shield of triple brass. But there are cases, and there are times, when crime can go brazenly into a court of justice and INNOCENCE WALKS IRESIBLISGLT TUKKB’. Whenever the public mind is elicited, when ever the people at large believe, ns it were, a certain wav, and when the tide swells, and the wave has set in one direction, now and then there may come a time when it is dangerous for an innocent man to enter the temples of justice. I admit that it is a terrible thing for that to be true, because, if there should be, or if there is, a holy place beneath the stars, it is in a court where justice is done between man and man. Jiy client has said he wanted a trial. A DIVERSION. Mr. Wirt Dexter—lf it pleases the Court, how far shall statements he made that It is uot proposed to prove—private conversations between * counsel and client, etc. I simplv ask the Court to lay down a rule now and have the brother follow it, and I will try and observe it when I close the case. The Court—l don’t think anything has been said yet that has been improper. Col. Ingcrsoll—l will prove this when you prove what Mr. Bristow said and what Air. Bristow thought in this case. [Laughter.] Mr. Dexter— That is no reply to me, because I have said nothing about that. Col. Ingcrsoll—Not you but your side. There doesn’t live in this dty a lawyer bright or eloquent enough to make idiots of twelve good and honest men. I am not afraid of the dosing. Now, gentlemen have developed their scheme, their case, and Judge Ayer, with great chemical minuteness _ , Mr. Ayer—All but the Judge. Col. Ingersoll—l meant no disrespect. [Laughter.] 31r. Aver has developed and described with great minuteness THE VARIOUS DUTIES THAT DEVOLVE UPON DIS- TILLERS, Gaugers, Storekeepers, rectlfyers, wholesale dealers, and the various officers employed by the Government to prevent and detect fraud. I thank Mr. Ayer for doing it. And after having listened to the sections of the statute whidi he read, pointing out what a distiller must do at sunrise, at 12 o’clock (meridian), aud at sunset; that he must find out the dry inches in a tub and the wet inches In a tnb; just when this one began to work, aud the exact gravity of the tub at 13 noon; and then how the pipes should be connected and the cocks scaled, the cisterns made perfect, and everything of this kind,—you heard it all,—l made up my mind that these at torneys in this dty would not run a distillery two weeks without getting in the Penitentiary, unless you comd make a bargain for immunity. I don’t believe it is hardly within the power of. man to start a distilling establishment and comply in every particular with that law. He must keep an account of every partidc of fuel he buys, of all the oats, corn, malt, and meal. He must keep a list of every man employed in his estab lishment, and show what that man does, and where that man lives. What were THE DUTIES OP THIS DEFENDANT I You have heard all these sections of the stat ute read—enough to make a man dizzy, contem plating going into that business. Air. Almm, the defendant, had a district to look after, com prising three States. He was to be - m Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Now*, what were his duties 1 To look af ter all the officers—the Collectors, the Deputy Collectors, the Storekeepers, Gauffers, aud Kevenue Affcuts. What i'Lse! All of the rectifying establishments. What eles—and it was perfectly amazing to me that my friend left anything out? All the brewers. Wfeat elsel All the retail liquor establishments. What else? All the tobacco establishments. W ell, what next came within the scope of his duty! Let us see what he did. There were between forty and fifty distilleries in this district, and each distillery ought to haye done exactly what "Mr Ayer has described, and accord i u ,,’ to Mr. Ayer It was the duty of the defendant to look after every one of them. What else? Fifty drstfleries SOO or 60U rectifying establishments, about I,oUU wholesale establishments, that the gentleman with the eves of Argus, bad to look after. What else 1 About 50 or 00 breweries, about 10,000 retail establishments. Whatelsei About 8,000 or 9,000 tobacco and cigar establishments. Why, one would want more books than arc used by *h« recording angel, to keep an account of the business done kfth’esc dajs at 1,500 wholesale lifiuor establishments, 000 or 000 rectifyiu— KL, M totmerteVfco breweries, 10,000 retaS establishments and IS,OOO or 0,000 tcffiacco and establishments. Ihat being his dntv, tlmsegentlemen propose to holdidm responsible for any frauds happening to his district, and they say that in addition to all this they have got DIRECT, POSITIVE PROOF. Gentlemen, do you believe that they would have gone to all this trouble of showing you ex actly ’what had to be done in each distillery, in each rectifying establishment, if they had any confidence in their evidence that we received money directly, knowing that it was for a base and fraudulentnurpose ? The Court—Col. Ingersoll, the time for ad journment has now come. Col. Ingersoll—Well, but don’t forget what I have said to you, gentlemen* [Laughter.] The Court again cautioned the iury, aud or dered an adjournment till 10 o’clock this morn ing, when Col. Ingersoll will go on with his opening remarks. They will probably extend into the afternoon, but it is quite probable that the testimony will be reached before the day is over. ELSEWHERE. MILWAUKEE. JONAS, GOLDBERG, AND CROSBY. Special Dispatch to The Tribune, Milwaukee, May 12.—Leopold Wirth was re called. and testified that he did not remember the conversation at the interview* in Mr. Mur phy’s office, or any part of it. On every point on which be was questioned, witness had no recollection. Same in cross-examination. FRED GRIMM’S EXAMINATION was resumed. He testified that he saw Wirth in Mr. Murphy’s office Feb. 21 last. Wirth was asked what there was in this charge, and an swered that, according to his recollection, there was no conspiracy to steal papers or books or destroy them. He remembered it because he took notes, and wrote a communication on the subject to the StaaU-ZeUung. Wirth also said, spealang of Jonas, that he (Jonas) was as Inno cent as a child. ELIAS SHIPMAN was recalled, and testified as to the same con versation in detail, confirming the statement made by the previous witness. In addition, he said he did nut know* where Crosby was at the moment of speaking, but thought he bad not absconded, and that witness could find him if he tried. Could not give Information that would lead to the discovery of Ills whereabouts. LOUIS M. COHEN, OP DETROIT, was the next witness. He testified that he was at the Tivoli, in Chicago, at the interview that Louis Rindskopf referred to in his evidence, and heard the conversation thereat. Jonas asked him to do so, before the meeting took place. The party talked continuously for about twenty minutes on the subject of this conspiracy. Rindskopf, in about the middle of the conversation, asked, “ Who is that man 1” pointing to the witness. Goldberg answered: “ How should I know I” The witness went to the bar, but came back and took a chair in a dif ferent place, where he was able to hear still bet ter. Heard Louis say to Goldberg that McKin ney had sent him (Louis) to see him (Goldberg), and then he added in substance that McKinney had told him it was not him or Crosby nor Jonas that was wanted, but Hedrick, and if he (Goldberg) would come up and tes tify against Hedrick, the case against him (Jonas) aud Crosby would be dismissed. Goldberg said be knew* nothing against Hedrick. Rindskopf told him THAT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE, but to come on and swear to what he told him, and he would be all right. Goldberg said that would be perjury. Louis said that wouldn’t make any difference; that he (Louis) had com mitted perjury over and over again, and that it was nothing; and he added: “What is Jonas or Hedrick to youi” Witness also heard him say it was Hedrick, Phil Wadsworth, and Jake Rehm they were after; didn’t hear him say anything about Farwell or Logan. Rindskopf said to Goldberg: “You must protect yourself; you have a family to take care of, and you are poor.” He asked where Crosby was, and said he wanted him. Goldberg said, if Louis would produce a letter from McKinney screening Crosby from prosecution, he would find out and bring him to Milwaukee. Louis said he thought US COULDN’T DO THAT, but Goldberg must find' Crosby and tele graph to him (Rindskopf). Witness tes tified at considerable length on these points, most of the evidence being mere repetition, and to the effect that Farwell and Rehm were to be reached through Gold berg, and McKinney knew Goldberg could not testify truthfully against any of these parties, but that made no difference, and if he did tes tify it would be oil right, and he would not be tried. In cross-examination by Mr, McKinney, the witness gave a history of his life, and said be worked in this case out of friendship for Jonas. Made notes of the conversation above reported. Here there took place A VIOLENT EXPLOSION, on account o£ McKinney asking defendant If he was a Jew, framing his question iu such a way as to rouse the indignation of counsel for the defense. Mr. Murphey denounced the line of cross-ex amination as petty, unmanly, and dishonorable. The Court said nc was not satisfied yet wheth er the question denounced was material or not. >lr. Murphey said he could not satisfy the Court unless he was permitted to proceed: if he could not be "heard, of course he would sit down. ilr; McKinney made au explanation of the object of bis question. Col. Goodwiu would not object to the ques tion if it had been put with an honest purpose, but it was put In a covert way for an improper purpose, and was AN INSULT TO A COUIIT OP JUSTICE. The Court here impressively said the counsel had better proceed with the case in the ordinary way. Col. Goodwin rather tartly admitted he thought so too. , _ Mr. Murphc}', being invited by the Court to proceed with his argument, said the question put by McKinney was objected to because it was an artful attempt to appeal to the prejudices that are SOMETIMES BAMPANT IN COMMUNITIES AGAINST JEWS. That was the only objection they had to the question. Mr. McKinney then asked witness if he was ashamed of being a Jew, to which he promptly replied he was proud of it; but here the Court expressed disapproval of this style of examina tion, and, a 6 counsel on both aides were evidently preparing to flare up again, McKinney decided to end the examination, and witness was allowed to depart. ALT). MAIIU, OP CHICAGO, testified that he held a position in Chicago as Alderman up to last Monday, but held no posi tion since; knew Aid. Jonas; came up with Jonas and Goldberg when they were arrested under this indictment. Louis Rindskopf was on board that train—or at least the witness was so informed; witness is not a Jew; left Chicago at 5 and arrived here at 8:30, on the Northwest ern ; went to the Marshal’s house on ar rival, and thence to the Kewhall House. Shipman was with the party; had scon the man who, he understood, was Louis Rindskopf at the Custom-House yesterday. It was the same man he understood was Louis Rindskopf on the train; heard Rindskopf talk ing with Shipman at the Newhall House; did not hear him say anything about having been before the Grand Jury. The question, did he hear Louis Rindskopf say anything on the subject of assisting Gold berg, or any of the defendants, to obtain ball, was objected to und objection overruled. The witness did hear him speak on the sub ject; heard Rindskopf say something to the effect that it was NOT THE DEPENDANTS, BUT HEDRICK, that they were after. On cross-examinastion, the witness said he aid not hear this remark about Hedrick at the New bull House or at the Court, but in some place not referred to in the evidence for the prosecu tion, and the testimony was, after a aingularly kcen legal light, ruled out. W. W. REGAN, A HACKMAN, OP CHICAGO, was the next witness. He heard Jonas talking to Rindakopf about money, but what, with words ruled out and words ruled in, and what witness heard himself, and what witness was not sure be heard, it is rather difficult to inform the readers of The Tribune just precisely what the gentleman did or did not hear. Sandwiched between the ques tions were fine bits of personal controversy be tween counsel, just on the border-land of warm temper, but interspersed with glimpses of good humor. In the midst of all this, the Court ad journed. • AX 1 iiiVl. W.l. William J. McGorrigle, a detective, of Chica go, teststified that be liad heard Rindskopf say 5 he had gone before the Grand Jury and given information he must have committed perjury; that he had not been before the Grand Jury; never heard of such a proposition as stealing or destroying these records; that Jonas was an in nocent man, and he knew him to be so; that he heard a conversation between Rindskopf, Jonas, Shipman, and others, when Rindskopf said it was not defendants, but Hedrick, they were af ter, and that they would try and get bad for them; saw defendants, Rindskopf, and witness Cohen at the Tivoli; Cohen was sitting near the others. , • . Redirect —Jonas told witness he had sent Co hen to the Tivoli, as he wanted to find out what Rindskopf had to say to Goldberg, AND HE HAD TO LOOK OUT PRETTY SHARP POR HIMSELF, . . because the Milwaukee men were trying to put up a job on him M’KISNET HIMSELF was next sworn. Of the preliminaries ha tesu- fiod that be believed there bars been special assessments against Louis Rindskopf; don’t know if it was over $50,000. The question, bad be given a promise of partial immunity to Louis Pandakopf, was objected to by Judge Dixon on the ground of privilege, Murphy asked why. Dixon said because, If everything done by the Government was dragged from the prosecution, no counsel would ever undertake suchaprosecu tion. He could satisfy the Court as to the pro priety of the prosecution. Murphy had never heard authority for such a proposition or reason. He stated the law of privilege as between counsel and client, show ing where it differed from privilege as between counsel and Government. He asserted that these criminal cases have resolved into this— that whisky men found guilty must GOTO STATE’S PRISON OU FURNISH A SUBSTI TUTE, and Rindskopf had devoted the latter part of his life to saving himself and furnishing the Government with substitutes. Finally, Dixon withdrew his objection, and McKinney answer ed that not one word or syllable of such a promise had ever been made by him or anyone else with his knowledge. He had never prom ised that himself or Dixon would recommend Rindskopf to the mercy of the Court. Murnhey then asked: “What did you prom ise!” Judge Dixon objected, stating that counsel was going on to ask questions not contemplated when he withdrew bis objection. The defense HAD KO RIGHT to put counsel in the Government prosecution on the witness-stand. The Court was inclined to agree with Judge Dixon Murphy wanted to know whether the Court would uot have required au if the ques tion had been raised by their side. The Court said he thought the authorities would be best in this case. Goodwin said the prosecution was compelled to describe everything at St. Louis. After a lengthy argument the Court requested the au thorities in the morning, and examination of this witness was postponed. JOHN ST. CLAIR CLEVELAND, MAYOR’S SECRE- TARY, of Chicago, testified to Jonas* character. He had known him nine years. Here a fight as to the extent the witness might be permitted to testify to general character. Murphy offered to show Jonas to be distin guished for charitable actions above the average eveu'of good citizens. There were strong objections and a legal fight. Authorities were cited, in the midst of which adjournment ensued. « ST. LOUIS. MRS. LEAVBNWORTU’3 BOMBSHELL. Special Dispatch to The Tribune. St. Louis, May 12, —McKee’s friends were very hopeful last night that he would escape the imprisonment port of his sentence, but the de velopments of to-day are of so serious a char acter as to make Executive interference exceed ingly improbable. McKee was convicted main ly upon the testimony of Fitzroy, the second paymaster of the King, who testified to paying over S4BO to McKee on one occasion. McKee’s chief claim for clcmccy was the fact that Fitz roy’s was the only testimony that connected him with the Ring, and that, as Fitzroy was an infamous witness, his evidence should not be taken as conclusive. The following oilidavit has, however, thrown additional light on the subject. It was filed to-day with the Clerk of the United States District Court, and a copy forwarded to President Grant: Fannie M. Leavenworth, of lawfal age, being ©reduced, sworn, and examined, depose tli unci eaithae follows: I reside at No. 1521 Olive street, in this city, and have lived in St. Louis all my life. John Leavenworth was my husband. We wore, married in St. Louis on the 3d day of June, 1802. He died June 3, 1873. I have met William McKee occasionally during the lost six years. I have seen him at the residence of my husband in bis lifetime us many os three or four times. These visits were made to the house by him in the years 1871 and 1572. When he came to the house ILB ALWAYS CAME ALONE. I also know Conduce G. Megrue. 1 met him first in 1871, in the summer of that year. I have seen him at our residence perhaps six or seven times. In 1871 my husband first told me of the or ganization of what is now known as the Whisky Ring. He told me that it was organized for political purposes, and I know, of my knowl edge, that my husband spent a large amount of monev for this purpose. X learned from him that the money collected from the distillers was distrib uted at the office of the Supervisor, and certain amounts or packages given to him to deliver to cer tain parties. He frequently BROUGHT LARGE AMOUNTS OP MONEY to the bouse with him. This was done on Satur days, and the money would frequently remain in the house until Monday morning, when it would be taken away .by my husband, I have seen my husband frequently count the money and place it in envelopes marked “William Mc- Kee. ” lam unable to state the number of times I saw this done,* but it was a weekly occurrence, or nearly so. He may have distributed it on some oc casions before coming home. I have seen him have AS MUCH AS $7,000 at a time in the house. On one occasion,—l think n 1872, —after the money had been placed in the package and marked “WilliamMcKee,” I went in company with my husband to the house of William McKee, on Washington avenue. I stopped on the pavement opposite the house, and my husband re marked to me to wait until he delivered the package. I saw him go to the dooranddoliverthc package, to whom 1 am not able to say, as I did not see the party who received It. He told me that his in structions were to deliver EITHER TO M’KEE HIMSELF OR HIS WIPE. On one occasion, after tea, McKee came to our house and asked for my husband. Zebulon Leavenworth admitted him when he came in. p* Re seemed to be very careful that some one would know it, and spoke in a tone barely above a whisper, and said: “H-u-s-hl” as if he was afraid to have bis name announced. I was on the steps at the time and coming up stairs, and remember the occurrence very dis tinctly. I should say that the amount paid by my husband to McKee during the time that Maguire was here ranged from SSOO to SI,OOO per week. It was my understanding that MR. FORD RECEIVED ft 13 PORIiON THROUGH m’kee. I have seen my husband and Mr. McKee together frequently on the street. They often walked up the street together in the evening. It will be remembered that John Leaven worth was the original disburser of the Ring proceeds. Mrs. Leavenworth is well known in this city, and is of irreproachable character. HER INCENTIVE for making this statement at this time is the fact that her brother-in-law, Zcbulon Leaven worth, is one of the untried indicted Storekeep ers, and it is supposed she furnishes this testi mony against McKee in return for immunity ex tended to her kinsman. At any rate, Leavenworth’s case, set for trial to-day, was indefinitely postponed. District-Attorney Dyer refused to sign the recommendation for a commutation of sentence which Pierrcpont sent him, and expressed himself displeased at Pierre pont’s officiousness in the matter. Mrs. Leav enworth has delivered to District-Attorney Dyer a number of notes and letters written by Mc- Kee to her husband. The following is one op them: Dec. 20,1875.—Dear John : Come to my bouse •on Washington ovenue at once. I want to see yoa on matters of importance to-night^ To John Leavenworth. Wm. KcKbb* HESIXG. JUESSEN MAKING INQUIRIES. Special Dispatch to The Tribune. Washington, D. C., May 13. —Edmund Jues *en, of Chicago, is licre on his way to the Liberal Convention in New York Monday. He has im proved his opportunity to look over the ground in behalf of his client, Hesing, but received no assurances from Secretary Bristow, or any other authorities, relative to a compromise in the Hesing case. There does not seen to be any possibility of any compromise in that or in any Chicago case. The Government officers insist that toe evidence against those who have not S leaded guilty, and which has not been pub shed, is very"strong. Hibernian Harmony* In the recent riot at Limerick between Home- Rulers and Nationalists, after the streets had been stained with blood, Mr. Butt, when quiet had been restored, delivered an address, *in which he expressed pride In the triumphant re ception giveuto him, as proving that no violence would mar or dissension disturb the councils of Ireland in Its path to freedom. BUSINESS NOTICES. Full of Danger!—Never Laugh at a Cold In the Head, Sore Throat, or Pain in the Lungs. Just such “little ailments” are premonitory of Consumption and Death, and Wishart’a Pine Tree Tar Cordial is the only Remedy that can thorough!}* Core all Pulmonary Complaints by purifying the Blood! Millions of Bottles of Burnett's Cocoalne bare been sold during the last twenty years, and the public have rendered the verdict tnal It is toe beat hair-dressing in tbe world. * i Valuable and Reliable— 14 Brown’s Bron chial Troches ~ arc invaluable to those exposed to Budden changes, affording prompt relief in Coagha, Colds, etc. i PUOIFESSIONAL. P'~~jjg m FISTULA positively cured nra Ij PTH without pain or the use of knife, R 9 Bsi 'feviiirature. or caustic. A SURB B| Conaulla i&iiH*'actionsfree. Dr. J.B.C. Phillips, HX7 & idSiladison-st., Chicago* CLOTHING* 1 to Pawsfi WITHIN THE LAST FEW BAYS LarpAdditions TO OUR ALREADY lIiSE STOCK, ■A-KTX) PURCHASERS CAN KELT ON FINDING AN Elegant Assortment OP THE LATEST & IST STYLISH GARMENTS FOB Men’s & Boys’ WIEL&.IR,, ALL OLE OWN MANUFACTURE, AND PRICES WARRANTER AT ACTUAL Jobbers’ Rate. M CHALLENGE COMMON. ILOE, BLUETT & CO, Leading Clothiers, State and Rfladison-sts. CLOAKS AND SUITS. (MaadMDep’t CAEBON, PIECE & CO., Madison and Peoria-sts, CASHMERE MD DRIP D’ETE CLOAKS A handsome Cloak for $4.50 and $5. Cashmere Cloaks, fringed. with lace and Braid. $6. Rich and Stylish Cloaks, Silk trimmed, $7.50 and SB. Crap d'Efe Cloaks, trimmed with Ross trim ming and Frieze. $9 and $lO. An elegant line of Fine Cloaks for sl2 and sl4. never before sold for less than $lB and S2O, A fall line of Black Silk Cloaks for sls,slS, and s2o—very cheap. LADIES’ SUITS. A heantifnl Stnlf Salt, in three pieces, nicely trimmed, for $lO and sl2. The new Combination Suit, in three pieces, for sls ; worth $22. Poplin Saits in two colors, knife plaiting and cording, $lB and S2O. worth $25 and S3O. An elegant line of Silk Suits, very cheap. Overskirts and Jackets from $5 upward. Herr Rosenthal, late of Berlin, is Superintendent of designing and manufacturing in our Cloak and Suit Dept., and will guarantee a fit in every instance. West M Dry GdoJs Bob, HOSIERY. Fine Hosiery! Ladies will find in this Dep't a hundred different styles in every conceivable shade. Plain and Panoy, Gored, Clocked, Sandal Lace, Transparent Brodequin, Emb’d Steeple Tops, Plaids, and Half Perpendicular, in Silk, Lisle, Balbriggan, and Pure Surat Cotton. These include the fashionable shades of Citron, Maize, Ceil, Pink, Mauve, Cardinal, Sky Blue, Ecru, Prune, Slate, and Black. We offer to close a bargain in Pearl Silk Hose at $2,50, and a choice lot of heavy Silk at $3.50, worth double. Also, richly emb’d Pink and Blue at $6.50, reduced Horn $lO, and a case of extra quality! Balbrig gan at 45 cts,, or $5 per dozen—<» rare bargain. Children’s Fancy Striped, full regular made, at 25 cts., well worth 50 cts., and on equal bargain at 60 cts.'in better good& Chets. Gossage Co. State-st—W*sMngton-st. NOTIONS, Pig ■BSSTSiiI, Parasols, Trim* mings, Fans, &c. An immense stock of the NOV ELTY CANOPY DRESS PARA SOLS, in all the stylish colors, with superb handles. Sun Umbrellas "With handles in every conceivable design; Heavy Twilled Silk in 2 inch, 16,18, 20, 22, 24. for $1.75, $2, $2.25, $2.73, $3. Trimmings. Black Silk Fringes, an unusuafi large assortment; Moss Trim mings, Lacing Cord, with Tassels to match; and all the specialties iu Dress Trimmings, at our usual, low prices. Fine Fans. Novelties in Flirtation, Russia. Feather, Ivory, Pearl, and Real Shell. Ten case Japanese Fans at Gc*. Bc, 12 l-2c, 20c, and up, worth double. Trimming Braids, all widths andt colors. Buttons every shade, style, and size. Soaps, Perfumes, Brush es, etc. Guaranteed in price one third lower than can he found elsewhere. Millinery. Hats and Bonnets iin Straw, Chip, Hair, and Fancy Braid, Tus can, Satin Shell, Etc., in all the latest novel shapes. Styles recherche and distingnine Trimmed Bonnets ' and Round Hats, Flowers, Feathers, Wings, and Ornaments. Novelties received daily from the leading Paris modxsts. 131 &> 138 State-st. SHAWLS* SHAWLS! FIELD, LESTER & CO. CALI, SPECIAL •ATTENTION TO LARGE REDUCTIONS I3>T Summer Shawls Frenchandßritish Fine Cash mere Shatvls, in elegant and choice designs. Plain Brocade Stripes and Plaids, new and elegant shades. Large assortment of Domestic Shawls, best make! unprece dented bargains! and a JOB LOT Suitable for Immediate Wean Extraordinary Cheap! STATE & WASHKGTOE-STSL TAILORING. SHIRTS. HOLD ONI Oar customers in the country ray hold on, to my measure sol can duplicate my order. My Shirts look well, wear well, and fit weOi HABBIS <Sc COBB, 171 SOUTH CTLAHK-ST. . IUTS. NEVER! Were we so well prepared a* now to famish customers and the public with everything pertain* ing to Gentlemen's Headdress. BKEWSTEB, HATTEK, X. W. cor. Clark and Madigon.stg. SPECTACLES. Optician, S 3 liaiLitm-rt. (Tribune BolUlag). 5

Other pages from this issue: