The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1869-02-05

OUR DIsTILLERIEs. Gases in relation to
the Frysinger distillery, at Camden, aad the
Mcguire distillery, just below this city, have
recently been before the United States Dis
trict Court for this district, sitting at Chica-
60. Mr.. Frysinger was honorablY dtschaFg-
ed. A Chicago dispatch says:
1.-THE evidence showed that Mr.. Frysinger had
confOrmed TO all the requirements Of the law as
far Is informed, and the fault was on the part OF
the revenue officers. Judge DrummOnd made
long charge 10 the jury and closed by intimating
that the government officers had come duties to
perform before parties could bedepriyed Of rights
as we'll as property"
In relation to the Mcguire distillery, we
find the following in the Chicago papers
THE BABcocK AND MAaUIRE REVENUE CASE
In the case Of the United States Against2O bar
res Of highwines, Babcock and Mcguire claim
ants, which was noticed yesterday, the court sus-
tanned the demurrer TO the LIST, %, and 80 special
rleAs on the ground Of - want Of technlcA precls-
ION The question Of the power OF the cOmmls-
siOner of internal revenue TO make the comproh-
ise referred 70, came up on the pleas Upon this
point the court decided that it was to bepresumed
that when the commissioner acted, he acted by
instruction from the secretary Of the treasury, in
which department he controls a bureau,and there
fore that any compromise which he proposed
should be taken be the act Of the secretary OF the
treasury unless evidence we're produced to reeut
this strong presumption, The court thought thht
it would not be necessary to state IN the peadlngs
that the commissioner had acted by direction oil
the secretary Of the treasury. If this we're 80,
then he decided that the commissioner, acting LOT
the secretary of the treasury, had, under the act
g via tO
revenue laws In this case, owing to verbal de-
fects in the proceedings, it would probably De
necessary that the court should be enlightened by
evidence. because the pleadings had shown, for
instance, the proposition for settlement. TINS
had been copied with the plea with the signature
| of Babcock 4 Mcguire affixed. Inc court
| thought that il was a fair inference That they
had sioned the paper but that the technical rules
| Of pleading required an sverment Of the cIrcum-
stances attending the signing. The court sug-
restei that the case be submitted TO the jury,
| as he would then learn the facts attending the
| transaction and be prepared to give the law IN
| relation to the powers Of the commissioner, anu
as 10 the effect Of the acts Of that officer and the
collector as representing the secretary OF the
treasury. The case was then proceeded with De-
fore the Jury on the plea Of the general issue
Judge Drummond, we learn, has ordered
that the $4,000 paid the government BY
Babcock & Mcguire, by way of settlement
be paid back to the defendants, aud he says
moreover that he will protect the revenue
officer in the payment of it to the defend
ants. He says it cannot be considered il
partial payment Of the 81, 900, the amount
at which the government assessed the deb
of Babcock & Mcguire to the government
nor can it be regarded as an accord in salts
faction.